Re: Guru Swami G
Date: July 14, 2013 03:42AM
GuruPatrol, please read the last 10 pages or so worth of posts. There has been a long discussion of the Florida licensing statute and the ministerial exception. My own opinion on the matter is that religious leaders ARE given a great deal of leeway to deliver what otherwise would be mental health counseling services within the unlicensed rubric of "spiritual counseling." I suspect that where ministers may sometimes cross the line into truly illegal, unauthorized practice work is when they start delivering (for pay or otherwise) services involving drug withdrawals, psychotropic medication weaning, addiction treatment, and services for serious mental health conditions like depression, PTSD, etc. Swami G does seem to advertise services that otherwise would be provided by licensed mental health professionals, and my understanding (I may be wrong) is that she does charge money for those services ($400 per 4 sessions I think), but absent more information I just don't know for sure whether indeed she violated the law and so will refrain from opining. But it's certainly fine to ask questions. Others have said here that the services she gave most definitely were of the mental health counseling variety and one, I believe, even characterized her service as medical in nature (prescription medication weaning), but who knows what the truth is. The Florida licensing board, which has an online directory (linked earlier in this thread), appears not to list her name, but I just looked for Ganga as first name and found nothing. Perhaps she indeed is licensed. She has not claimed to be so, however, in her videos.
As for the earlier poster who made distinctions between what women and men can do in the Hindu faith and that Swami G may be inappropriately donning "male" titles and roles, I must respectfully disagree. All religions have rank sexism baked into them. I would not wield that sexism against someone who otherwise has a genuine interest in helping humanity. I wouldn't much care if she'd even call herself "Pope." What is important is the content of her spiritual and other guidance and whether it survives scrutiny -- such as that given here.
Swami G has posted a new string of videos over the last several days. One seemed to answer rather directly some of the appeals I made to her in my last post to return to positivity, to stop attacking departed followers, and to posting forward-looking videos directed at guiding followers and viewers, providing practices and advice for a more centered life, etc. She posted a very thoughtful, very thorough, and very reflective video. For that I say THANK YOU, Swami G. I have asked questions and expressed some concerns about your practices and behaviors and most especially your recent treatment of lapsed followers that have left with very critical and troubling things to say. But I appreciate very much that you shared with us your current thinking about being a guru and the direction of your ashram. Much of it made great sense to me, especially what you said about having already said everything, multiple times, in the existing videos, and how gurus themselves change and morph through their lives. I understand better now and appreciate very much your having shared those thoughts publicly. They explain a lot.
She also has posted more recent videos discussing her lineage (although refusing to give details about her commissioning guru), defending herself from the dilettantism criticism (flitting from religious practice to religious practice, etc.), and unfortunately again delving into rants against departed students, but at least there appears to be a gradual settling.
It's interesting too that she appears to have taken to heart the criticism made by many here and elsewhere about her apparent egocentrism and need for adulation as a guru. She has called off Guru Purnima for her ashram and will be elsewhere for it. That strikes me as a good sign. I must say, whatever my concerns have been with Swami G (as an outsider, long time video viewer), I have consistently been impressed with the positive INTENTIONS behind her actions and teachings and efforts. Although she has come across as egotistical and narcissistic at times (in the words of a recent poster), I can sense that generally she has meant well and has been genuine in her desire to help alleviate the suffering of followers and others. That is a very good thing. I have said before her that no student is perfect and no teacher is perfect. Swami G is not perfect. We can debate the extent of her imperfection, but I do see that there is some good there for which she deserves acknowledgment and appreciation. I, myself, appreciate her for what I've learned from her. And have only good wishes for her and for her current and departed students. I wish them all peace.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2013 03:46AM by Icarus.