Run (don't walk) to download the chapters from this one. I found the chapters on Krishnamurti and Adi Da to be quite informative. Granted, the author does focus on the negative aspects of these teacher's lives, but that's highly relevant when considering the claims made and the attention given to these teachers.
- http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

Closely related is "Norman Einstein," his devastating critique of Ken Wilber's writings.
- http://www.normaneinsteinbook.com/

Hi, Phil, I came across that book some time ago. I've only ever looked at the chapter on Findhorn, since I knew the Caddy family back in the 70s. As you say, the author selects his evidence so as to present as bleak a picture as possible. In the case of Findhorn, all his "revelations" are from previously published and widely available materials.

Derek, I wasn't aware of any controversies concerning Findhorn, and after reading what he wrote, it doesn't seem so bad -- not nearly like the chapters on Adi Da and Wilber (haven't checked out others yet). Findhorn seems to have arisen like so many other communities -- from the impetus of strong leaders, then morphing into a more democratic group.

A big problem for a lot of the other guru chaps treated in this book is that they can't seem to keep their pants zipped up! That's understandable, given that higher consciousness doesn't just increase brain function, but stimulates the "lower chakras" as well. When this is all excused as "crazy teaching" in a community, however, sick and abusive dynamics can set in.

Hey Phil,

I started checking out this book from your other post on Krishnamurti. In that version, I notice he includes the Roman Catholic Church as one of his chapters...That didn't sit well with me, and I see that in this version above that you post, the RC chapter is absent.

Anyway, this guy is a real comedian! A hoot to read! Sharp but maybe a little too much into humiliating these guys...at the same time, I see the perspective of needing to expose their dark and hypocritical sides as important public service announcements to rescue followers. And how can I not like a guy who wants to help people out in this way--even financially.

I read through the Muktananda chapter. Though I never met him personally, I was into SYDA for a while and witnessed some of the seedy blow-up in Ann Arbor years ago between the brother-sister successors of Swami M. Falk doesn't go into that much or the numerous legal problems M. got into with sleeping with minors, threatening to kill people if they talked. Nasty stuff. I don't know what's more crazy? His sexual addiction or his apparently severely impaired judgment to think he could keep such activity a secret in an ashram? !

I'm praising God for my great fortune. While M. was blazing through Ann Arbor with his SYDA stuff, initiating folks like my psych. prof. at UM, who turned around and got me and so many others launched into that nonsense, the Holy Spirit fell in great power and the huge charismatic community flourished. It was from this group of lovely people that I was brought to Christ and cleaned up of those connections.

Shasha, I saw that chapter on Roman Catholicism and read it (I think it's still there, toward the end of the book). It's no secret that there's been scandalous behavior at very high levels of church leadership, including popes. The author misunderstands what Catholics mean in considering the Pope the Vicar of Christ, however, and takes this along with "one true Church" teachings to make of Catholicism a cultish phenomenon. It's easy to see how an outsider would connect the dots this way, but, unlike the other kinds of scandals he writes about, these are condemned by the Gospel itself and are not rationalized as some kind of "crazy teaching."

Sounds like you just missed the Muktananda phenomenon! Part of the problem with men like him is they're just completely out of their element in Western culture. The differences in women's attire alone is probably enough to drive a young Indian man crazy, especially if the women seem fawning in their affection for him. I doubt that these gurus realized the kind of power they were exerting, nor the level of impropriety, much of which would have been hushed over back home. Not intending to make excuses for them, of course . . .

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

The cultural aspect of this, reflected in the character distortion of these half-baked gurus, is what gets my attention the most. The same would hold true for Catholic clergy given power they don't have the emotional maturity for. There is such an emphasis among Catholic bishops for recruitment of young priests from Latin American and Asian countries, yet with seemingly little or no regard for the distinctive psychology of those cultures. This would be, in a sense, the common ground between the mistakes I think the church is making and the personality-disordered New Age fervor over "god men."

We tend to overlook, via our multi-cultural glasses, the endemic psychopathology of ethnic family systems. For me to say this without anonymity might be career suicide as a social worker. As I mentioned on another thread, I come from such a family, and a best friend is first generation Hispanic, with other friends Jewish. When we compare notes the findings are pretty much the same:

What is shame for the person thwarted in seeking her individuation within a family is "honor" for the family if its members' identities are causally preserved as a collective one; this preservation of a shame/honor-based identity is the highest priority, and is secured primarily through unrecognized physical and emotional abuse. "Machismo" is pride in this collective identity, but is, psychologically, an emasculated state of being.

The Vatican seems attracted to these young men from Latin American and Asian countries, not just because they fill a growing clerical need, but because these men, acting upon the shame-based dictums of their ethnic family systems, will simply not question authority with any seriousness that might effect their sense of belonging to the collective.

Many of those gurus from the Orient are likely of the same psychological ilk, regardless of how their cultures may cloud the psychopathology with superficial behavioral constraints and adornments. Like Phil says, put them out of their element and the existential pain that has no inner containment via an early healthy parent-child attachment relationship comes calling in stark ways.

I saw this recently while dining in a Vietnamese restaurant. It was rather astonishing to see it so clearly. A large Vietnamese family had gathered, maybe a dozen family members, and probably representing four generations. The youngest was a little boy, no older than 16 months I'd guess. At one point this little guy, narcissistic as they all are at this stage of development, doesn't get what he wants and starts crying, angrily at first, but then things get much worse. As he cries, his protests are met with cold silence. The adults and older children and teenagers continue eating and talking and absolutely ignore this kid. His crying now becomes sad and then worsens further into anguish and a kind of despair. He's completely invisible, and eventually even to himself, as his delicate sense of self depends upon being seen and heard and understood. He ceases to exist psychologically, and therefore, at this age, physically. He stops crying, but is still clearly in pain. And he's learning the cultural lesson: merge with the collective identity, or don't exist. Once the energy of this kid's disturbed feeling state goes underground, and his affect is neutral, the adults and teenagers begin giving him attention, and without any sign of recognizing what has just happened. The shame-based roots of the the false self, and with it the collective family identity, have been secured, and are probably irrevocable, in a family like that, but age two or three.

This is how we got Imperial Japan, folks. And I'd say it is near the core of similar concerns with the cronyistic Vatican, and what drives New Agers to seek a narcisstic, abusive guru/mommy-daddy who will reinforce their own immaturity and call it devotional integrity, while the abuser is considered full of "crazy wisdom," etc . . . . .


Not sure if there's a significant exception to this among the Hindu gurus I've met, as I have never been within the inner circles. Most of those who are that close are too tranced-out to see the pain and distortion until, like the author of the book Phil cites, there is just a wake-up call for some to step away and see the abuse for what it is. But if you haven't faced/confronted it within your own family system, it would be pretty sticky-going trying to unravel the emmeshment.

w.c., your post reminds me of a phenomenon of the 1970s. At that time, many of us were sickened by the state of Western society and had mentally formed the equation West=bad, East=good. What's emerged since then, and what is reiterated in your post, is that Asian cultures are just as encouraging of neurosis as our own, only in a different direction. Your experience of the Vietnamese kid especially speaks volumes.

Derek:

Something that sort of haunts me in my own profession is the way the far left (much of academic social work is biased in this way) will clearly recognize the ravaging effects of abuse on children, yet deliberately fortify its own blind spots when any attempt is made to question the ethnic/cultural roots of the violence. This sounds like the distortion you are referring to decades ago that still functions to lamely placate our sense of guilt over Vietnam and Korea (but which is also a misguided reaction to older abusive traditional family systems: not remembering this has ethnic roots from earlier immigration). I've pointed this out, to no avail, to Catholic priests who preach again and again on "the poor" from the pulpit, yet fail to address the consequences arising from endemic ethnic family system psychopathology. The church's notion of "the poor" often caters uncritically to PC multiculturalism, and is protective of the church's top-down hierchial structure where psychological maturity would actually undo much of its sense of authority. I'm all for using limited entitlements to assist those toward increased independence and self-care, and even in the extreme for those who are truly incapacitated and need fuller, ongoing entitlements; yet the latter is a minority, which isn't critically addressed by the church's rather romantic (authority preserving) notions.

I have had clients who are Asian and Latino, and serve them as I would any other. Some are illegal, and I'd never turn them over to the INS, even though I strongly support building a complete security fence and even a broad policy of humane deportation (i.e, where there is a true home elsewhere and no real asylum needs)wherever illegals are attempting to naturalize themselves through children born in the U.S. But when I meet individuals from ethnic family systems, it is clear one must work with full respect for their collective, emmeshing identity system, or you simply cannot support them. But I'm able to do this because I'm fairly individuated and can see the difference; this sometimes helps as second or third generation ethnic family systems are often beginning to unravel, with the grandchildren shaped strongly by western individualism (the shadow side of capitalism), which lays a kind of pain-based foundation for an even slower, partial realization of individuation (individualism never brings interior happiness or purpose, so . . . . the existential crisis begins).

w.c., I'd never made that connection before, but you're right. Here in Canada "multiculturalism" has become part of the de facto state religion. Questioning the psychological health of other cultures would be a taboo subject. As for priests, though, I think we need all the priests we can get, and I'm happy to support them.

Derek:

As for the shortage of priests you are alluding to, this could be easily resolved were the Catholic Church to allow married men into holy orders, or give a choice to the seminarian, as the Orthodox do: marry and ordain, or ordain and remain celibate. The RC is already ordaining married Episcopal priests leaving their own fold, yet refuses to open this up further, which I think says something about the Vatican's fears of losing centralized authority - already a threat to them, especially in North America where the bishops are often viewed as rebels (which is why JP II was so strict in making his own appointments throughout his long papal tenure).

One of the strongest religious expressions of emasculation in Latin American countries is, I'm sorry to say, the Virgin imagery, which is basically a symbol of the perfect, abusive mother who cannot be criticized as the princess to her own abusive father and mother, and the progenitor to emasculated machismo. Every ethnic family system I've seen has some kind of dynamic like this where the shadows of individuals are reliquated to protective devices that sustain the collective identity cohesion. The RC promotion of Marianism, often in extreme and unintelligent forms, is a psychological device where false piety functions to conceal shadows of the true self painfully seeking expression.

Were the Vatican to open up ordination to married men, the focus of the majority of priests, over time, would be their wives and children along with the sacraments and their congregations, rather than institutional marriage. This mix would further dilute the church's unquestioned authority and, for instance, loosen its rediculous hold on matters such as contraception, which currently fosters increasing birth rates in third world countries where child and spousal abuse isn't even recognized for what it is. Many of the priests I know are fairly immature people, never dealing with psychological matters, and never really having to confront it amongst themselves, or their parishoners, as long as the emphasis is on Mass for the masses rather than on psychospiritual growth for individuals. The Protestants (my chaplain collegues tell me) have their own version of this dilemma.

And so I think the issue of priest shortage tells us as much or more about the fears of the Vatican than it does the challenge of appealing to young men to consider dropping the sexual aspect of their lives in order to live a calling many may not have the psychological ability to live well or sanely.

Those are all cogent points, w.c., and I can attest from many personal experiences of working in the church for over 30 years, now, that we have a real problem because of some of our teachings on sexuality. Michael Crosby's book, The Dysfunctional Church, addressed this head-on some years ago, and got him "un-invited" from a number of diocesan retreat centers. He located the core dysfunction to be the preservation of the male, celibate priesthood over-and-against Protestant tendencies, "liberal" theologians, feminists, etc. The sex-abuse scandals in the Church are not disconnected from this mentality, although more care is being given now to attending the psychological needs of seminarians.

- - -

Re. the Falk book, one thing that strikes me is that, with the exception of his chapter on Roman Catholicism, the common denominator among the others is this equivalency between godliness and higher consciousness. Once we do this and claims are made by and accorded to certain people, all sorts of weirdness can follow, especially if moral behavior is relegated to a lesser validation of saintliness. That's all so different than in Christianity, where higher consciousness isn't especially encouraged, and moral behavior is the final litmus test of authentic holiness.

Phil:

Yes, that would about describe the peculiarity of many New Age circles, where lack of moral accountability goes right along with obsfucating psychopathological entitlement. When you raise a child, as you would know, boundary settting on behavior is itself an appeal to the formation of conscience, and doesn't in any way stifle the child's wonder; rather it increases a sense of intimate beloning and safety among parents who can be trusted, although never perfect.

I think I do see the false piety of hyper-Marianism in many priests (at least implied), or at least their motivations to enter seminary. It is a stereotype, but what would compel a young man, still a teenager, or post-adolescent, to flee his sexuality so irrevocably? Certainly he is too immature to realize anything like a true spiritual calling to such rare responsibility with so many risks. And sexuality, and the sexual act, are not without fear, given the degree of vulnerability. So the question might be, instead: why flee such vulnerability? We all do from time to time, but seldom permanently (we all at least confront our loneliness, and hopefully selfishness as well), and this is no surprise, since sexuality is about longing to give and receive love - relationship, both interiorly and between persons. And it's here that I think the sterotype earns its circulation, with the emasculating mother seeking to keep her son a boy, her own prized possession, and wed him to an image of herself (Mary as distorted), as he may have already served in this capacity where the father was little or no husband, and/or the mother little or no spouse, or mother for that matter.

So sexuality would be just the aspect of human experience to manipulate if you wanted an all-male (or all female) club! For if the anima or animus were ever allowed to peak through the false veil of evil (they may appear as such when exiled so harshly and for so long), the emperor would surely lose some clothing.

I will order two of Crosby's books, as Amazon has them for pennies. Not popular items, I see, although he has some newer titles.

And I should also share knowing a few priests who do deal with these difficult and painful matters, and have been through psychotherapy, often for years; they often end up not only realizing their own loneliness and emasculization from childhood, but their aloneness among fellow priests once the membership vows have been broken.

Here's a link to a review of the scandals of the self-annointed guru Adi Da (Da Free John in an earlier incarnation), now dead of an unexpected heart attack late last year. I read this guy's books in the early - mid 90's. Wilbur has a critical review of him, having been close during the early years before Free John's grandiosity became so bizarre only the closest of his circle could continue to live in the brain wash. This link critical of his behavior and teaching explores moral culpability and the way enlightenment processes may just as easily lead to destruction as to a charitable end.

If you go to Adi Da's website, you can read his articles, which are an extreme example of what can happen when apparent narcissism, power, and religious ideation mix - not unlike Hollywood, but under the religious guise potentially far more destructive for those disciples who yearn for love but refuse to face wounds and the path of individuation (that path, not surprisingly, being the one this dead guru proclaimed was illusion). Once kundalini is habituated as its own end within the enlightened, yet fallen soul, the "other" as mirror of conscience and mortality becomes a threat to the false self/no self distortion.

Let us pray to Mary for his soul.

www.adidaarchives.org