If you go to her personal Facebook page, you'll see a post and video directly responding to the dialogue that Psyborgue referenced recently (which he had with a few of her followers on a secondary Facebook page). She's now taken that page down because, as she puts it, she does not want her students "putting words in her mouth." Hmmm. If I were a student who just stood up for her in her defense, I'd be a little ticked.

The video is well worth watching. It confirms some of what's been alleged here. Oh, and she calls the posters to this site "assholes" and "cockroaches." Some of her statements are contradicted by earlier videos and posts of hers, like an assertion that she has shared nothing publicly without the consent of the parties involved. Her exact words were: "Nothing has ever been posted without their assent or agreement." A direct contradiction to an earlier video in which she boasted that she had not signed a nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement for any departed follower and, therefore, is entitled to publicize the private and personal information that departed followers shared with her before leaving (which she proceeded to do, no?). I wonder if she's having some short-term memory problems. She seems to be losing track of statements she's made in the very recent past and then contradicting herself.

She also threatened to release the name of, expose the identity of, one of the posters here (a former student) if "he keeps it up." A strange threat to make, although more of the same I suppose. She seems to have a problem with the anonymity of web fora, claiming that it is unAmerican. Not realizing, perhaps, that the Federalist Papers themselves, which were the foundational documents of the Republic, were published under the pseudonym "Publius," particularly because they exposed inconvenient truths. Anonymous speech, Swami G, is as American as apple pie and very much protected by the First Amendment, largely because of situations like this one.

In any event, her response is interesting and worth viewing. Still full of vitriol and anger, but at least she speaks for herself and responds to what's been written here. If anything, it shows that, contrary to what she claims, she has been reading these posts very, very carefully.

[www.facebook.com]

I've seen the video and will write a detailed response on it tomorrow. I do want to emphasize to Guru G, becuase I know that she is reading this site closely, that none of her ex-students encouraged or prompted me to post what I did on her facebook page.

Guru G,

Retaliation against them is inappropriate. If you want to go after me. That's fine. I can take it. As to a Skype conversation. I would be more than happy to have one with you. You say "they won't do it". I've tried just that. I've messaged you directly asking for a debate on a neutral venue, provided you didn't publish anything private about anybody. You didn't respond. When I tried to talk to you on the Facebook group, you nuked it. You keep insisting I should talk to the Guru directly seemingly ignoring my requests to do just that.

Swami G posted a few more videos this evening. One again railing against anonymity and posters here. And another, entitled "Benefits of this Path," that is a ray of hope. On anonymity, I actually agree with her 100% on its dangers. A lot of people misuse anonymity to trash known others unfairly, to defame them, and to attack them unjustly. I would hope that that has not happened here. In fact, what I have observed in the last week or so that I've participated is that posters have referred to their true identities (as with Holly) and others that have stayed behind pseudonyms have tried to be fair and responsible. We should keep it that way. If this forum is to be an oasis of honest criticism and idea-sharing, it should be free of untruths and defamation. So, Swami G, I agree with you there. To be clear, however, asking questions, sharing perspectives and experiences, expressing opinions and concerns, etc., are not necessarily "defamation." What may be necessary revenge for unfair criticism to you may be experienced as something outrageously unfair and even potentially illegal by your target. It's important to appreciate the differences in perspectives between you and your departed followers. All of you may genuinely feel slighted, trashed and disrespected -- and perhaps even with good reason.

I also viewed the "Benefits of this Path" video as, finally, a breath of fresh air and the return to positivity and light on Swami G's part. That is the kind of constructive, instructional, helpful and positive video that attracted me to her in the first place. Thanks to her and to the followers who encouraged her to make it.

Swami G: Please stay on the positive and constructive path. Please continue to climb out of the negativity. Please put the attacks against your departed followers behind you. It has not served you well by any means. And it has caused them and especially you to suffer. Please just put it behind you. Everyone got hurt and bled. Enough. Please, enough. Please return to positivity, Please continue to share your knowledge with the greater community via your videos. Instead of turning more insular and cloistered with a handful of sannyasis, please consider both serving that small group of renunciates as guru while sharing your practices and techniques and teachings with the broader world via YouTube. Think of the public television and radio model. Give it away for free -- all or most of it -- and make it clear how grateful viewers can send in donations. Do not require people to join a secretive, closed group. Just give it away. (Like Tara Brach and other Buddhist teachers do.) I suspect you will achieve some of the wide reach that you have wanted and has eluded you. Whatever you do, please continue on the road of positive, constructive, light-filled teaching. Please leave the darkness, vitriol and negativity behind. You are a gifted teacher, but not when you are raging.

Namaste to Swami G, to her followers -- past and present, and to everyone here.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 11:15AM by Icarus.

Quote
Icarus
Swami G posted a few more videos this evening. One again railing against anonymity and posters here. And another, entitled "Benefits of this Path," that is a ray of hope. On anonymity, I actually agree with her 100% on its dangers. A lot of people misuse anonymity to trash known others unfairly, to defame them, and to attack them unjustly. I would hope that that has not happened here. In fact, what I have observed in the last week or so that I've participated is that posters have referred to their true identities (as with Holly) and others that have stayed behind pseudonyms have tried to be fair and responsible.

I have to disagree with that. When you're dealing with cults, particularly an organization like the Church of Scientology, its very often not a good idea to identify yourself for reasons that should be self-explanatory. Guru G is right that she has a right to face her accuser in a court of law, but not on the internet. And if she feels that somebody has defamed her, even anonymously, she has the option to sue a Doe, and later attempt discover the identity of the person (One can defend one's self anonymously in court. For example, if there is no grounds to the case, it can be dismissed by a pre-trial motion to dismiss before things ever get to the discovery stage). Anonymity does not at all mean there is no accountability. It just provides safety to people from extrajudicial retaliation.

In the video Guru G says she has a right in a court of law to put the "truth of the situation" out there. In a way, she's right, but unless the evidence is relevant to the case, the judge is not going to let it be used as evidence. You can't defend yourself from accusation X by saying Y and Z about the other person, where Y and Z are in no way relevant to X. For example, Guru G released private correspondence, and apparently, details on an ex-member's sex life. She claims she did this to defend herself against accusations made against her, yet such "evidence" seems to have little or nothing at all to do with the accusations against her. They're not a defense. They are a retaliatory strike. Those sorts of retaliatory strikes she seems to like so much are exactly why anonymity is a good thing.

All that being said, I'm more than willing to put myself out there and speak to Guru G by Skype if it will shut her up about these "nobody is willing" claims. I highly doubt she will take me up on the offer (more than likely she'll continue to claim nobody is willing), but if she does, I'm willing to put my face out there. I know she'll likely blast me in public, possibly defame me, or otherwise try and make me look like a monster, but I'm ok with that. I've dealt with it before.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 06:17PM by psyborgue.

Guru G mentions "gratitude journals" in her video regarding the Facebook page. Can any current or former members elaborate on what exactly is a "gratitude journal" and what sorts of things it's made up of?

Guru Swami G: why exactly do you call yourself "Swami"?

According to the culture of varnasrama-dharma (so-called "Hinduism"), isn't a female swami more properly referred to as a "Swamini"?

Keeping this in mind, why do you you and your students refer to yourself by the wrong appellation?

I sent an email to Sharon's sidekick Ron with a message for Sharon.
I basically explained that I would stop posting against her, but that if she pulled a stunt like she did with Holly, I would not hesitate to consult my lawyer to see if there were grounds to go after her.
Rather than let things settle there, she decided she had to post our exchange, and I had to recant and apologise for speaking out against her.
So I am posting the EXACT EXCHANGE here too - because she has a track record of editing/omitting/skewing exchanges like these.
(I have omitted my full name, even though she has threatened to post it along with personal information gleamed from the recorded sessions and elsewhere.

Hi Ron,

Please tell Sharon the following:
I'm not interested in duking it out with her online.
I have said my peace, and actually do understand her pov
on anonymity.
I won't continue posting on the Rick Ross thread.

Having said that, if I find she has pulled a stunt like she
did with Holly, revealing personal information gleamed
from recorded Skype counseling sessions (or otherwise), I will not
hesitate to consult the family lawyers.
And if I find there are any grounds for coming after her,
I will not hesitate to do so.
My sense is on the whole, I would have a stronger case
than her.
And you know I have the resources to do so.

ps. Still hope you snap out of it and cut all ties with this woman.

Regards

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Ron or Sharon's reply (it was signed Ron but sounds a lot like Sharon)

Hi Ron,

Please tell Sharon the following:
I'm not interested in duking it out with her online.
I have said my peace, and actually do understand her pov
on anonymity.
I won't continue posting on the Rick Ross thread.

** Mike, your life was not together and that is why you sought out help here. So you came and received a lot of help and you have acknowledged that many times to me personally and also publicly, yet now you have wiped your memory clean for what has taken place. Not only did you choose to turn your back on this help - you also chose to greatly distort and disrespect what is here and have publicly trashed Swami G's name.

There are consequences to these actions. You should have thought about this beforehand. Now, you have a choice to go back and retract what you have said and be honest with what has taken place. If you don't there is every right from here to set the record straight. Your threats have no standing. There is not nor was not anything legally or morally done wrong here. Your statements of consent for how you were being worked with were recorded, so you have no leg to stand on in court. This anonymous nonsense is not part of this path.

There is every right to release your posts from the forum, as well as this letter for all to see. You said you have "said your piece." Fine, now it is Swami G's turn to "say her piece". If anyone wants to leave this path, fine - all are wished well and advised to move on with their life fully in whatever direction they choose. At that point there is no attention given to that person any longer. The attention and aide is then given to those who remain.

This is all your own doing, you chose not to leave but rather linger in an unproductive direction, and now there are consequences for this action. Since you love to use names before the path, Swami G is happy to return that favor- all things used for clarification will be in the name of Michael ---------.


Having said that, if I find she has pulled a stunt like she
did with Holly, revealing personal information gleamed
from recorded Skype counseling sessions (or otherwise), I will not
hesitate to consult the family lawyers.


**There was no stunt, what was revealed was from Holly's own posts written on the forum.


And if I find there are any grounds for coming after her,
I will not hesitate to do so.
My sense is on the whole, I would have a stronger case
than her.
And you know I have the resources to do so.

**No, your parents have resources, not you, and they would not back you up when you are really starting up a potential defamation of character law suit.


ps. Still hope you snap out of it and cut all ties with this woman.

*You would do well to remember and come clean now and move on with your life. As you may recall, you shared your life with me quite a bit. You came here with physical and mental problems resulting from your prescription drugs. You left here in much better shape than when you arrived. And you acknowledged that at the time. Now, you have resorted to your ways of living prior to coming here.

Who is it that needs to snap out it and cut out unproductive activities now?

You have a choice to rectify and make this right or am happy to release this letter and other posts which will clarify just what you have done before and what you are doing again. You had asked for forgiveness the first time and you were graciously accepted back.

Now, you are coming again pulling the same drama and think there should be no consequences.


Ron

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is my reply to that:

1) It's signed Ron, but it seems more like Sharon. Please specify whose words these are.

2) Apparently you fail to grasp the unethical, manipulative, and retaliatory
nature of these recorded sessions and your use of them.
You simply will not find any respectable/licensed therapist who will insist on
recording and sharing sessions. Period. And the reasons are obvious to everyone
but you it would seem.
Add to that the malicious/retaliatory way in which you have used, and have threatened
to use, the contents of these sessions.
Add to that the fragile/maleable state I was in at the time.
Add to that the abusive/manipulative power of the teacher/student dynamic.
Are you starting to get the picture here?
I doubt it.

3) Whatever I may have said before or during my visit to Florida, was ERASED upon
my realisation that you were a fraudulent quack. Moreover, you may think my stay was
a success, only because you weren't privy to the aftermath of said visit.
Coming off the meds was relatively easy.
I could have done the same at home with a proper support network in place.
But it was done too fast, and in a foreign environment, so when I returned home,
I quickly hit a wall, which was a combination of severe withdrawal symptoms coupled
with my total disillusionment with you and the path.
My doctor can vouch for this.

4) You call my posting in a protected forum in order to help expose your nonsense "lingering in an
unproductive direction" I call it sticking my neck out so others don't have to suffer what I did
under your negative influence. Since you are supreme control over your forums and YT videos, there is no other place/way to expose you than in a forum like Rick Ross - even though I don't always agree with his methods.

5) I would love to know specifically what I need to rectify? What I need to come clean about? What I have said that is untrue? If I think there's merit to any specific point, I will be glad to recant.

6) The fact that I spoke up previously about things I felt were not right, and continued on with the group, and then did so again at a later point, has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Is your point that your accepting me back makes you a compassionate woman? Not sure where you're going with this? It simply shows that I knew something was wrong from the beginning, had the courage to speak up at risk of being thrown out, was accepted back, and stupidly accepted. And finally, had the clarity and strength to cut ties once and for all. That's all.

7) I'd be very surprised if you post this as is. Time after time you have shown that you must control the information. That's what you do on your forums and YT vids. And it pisses you off to no end that you can't exercise that control on sites like Rick Ross.

Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have posted exactly as it is.
You can judge for yourselves.

Man,

For a Guru, she doesn't seem to be very smart. I mean one of her critics is willing to stop speaking and she throws it back in his face. By pushing for all or nothing, all she's done is hurt herself.

BTW. I've messaged Ron, and another one of her close followers on Facebook (and here) to let them know i'm more than willing to have a Skype debate with Guru G. So far no response. It seems the Guru wasn't exactly sincere when she made that challenge.

These things are all, utterly against "Hindu" tradition:

[www.guruswamig.com]

"Swami" is a male-only term; it is used as synonym for the word "husband" in Bengal (or Bengali wives call their husbands Swami)). Sannyas is a male ONLY institution. Women do Vanaprastha and then that is it..there is no fourth ashram for woman according to the culture of sanatana-dharma.

But there are NO female sannyasis, not in traditional "Hinduism". Technically, women do not NEED sannyasa!

How do you answer these points, Swami G? Or more properly, Swamini G?

Wow! What a silly drama this whole thing is. For a "guru" she certainly seems to be caught up narcissistic rage and vengeance. But, I'm sure she has been of spiritual benefit for people in some way shape or form as many of her former followers acknowledge. I don't think she's "phony" in the sense of consciously trying to deceive people. She truly believes she is some sort of guru and perhaps she is! Really, who knows. One thing she IS NOT is a mental health professional. She should not be practicing any type of mental health counseling with no education or training to do so. Someone needs to report her to Florida's Department of Medical Quality Assurance. I'm still waiting to read all the "lies" her current followers are claiming people are saying regarding her. Holly especially seems to be rather balanced about the whole thing.