Phil,

The discussion about Bhagavan and Amma's Oneness Movement has raised a number of questions for me in other areas. One bunch of questions I have revolves around what it means to be our "brother's keeper" in a mutually healthy way.

I'm a guest here, and I don't want to be obnoxious, but I have questions; you guys have some answers...or your own questions...or at least a place where some questions can be discussed.

An area where I do feel confident I have experience to share is with sheep and horses--flight or fight animals, like humans--and I'd like to counter things said in some of Bhagavan's interviews with better science and my own experience. We are all like sheep, we do need a Good Shepherd, and I want to talk about that.

Ariel,

One of the defectors of that movement, Freddy Nielsen, seems repentent for having contributed to misleading Oneness fans with empty promises.

Freddy Nielsen and Madeleine Rahm, from Sweden, have been traveling the world since 2004, initiating over 150,000 people with energy transfers, Dikshas. Trained at the Oneness University in India, this work has been reported to be the “missing link” in permanently holding the state of Enlightenment

Freddy Nielsen was like a Dick Cheney to the Kracki's George Bush. But then he renounced his office and bailed. Now he's dishing, ferociously. Let the tell-all begin:...
For 15 years all over the world I’d been promising people that A&B were the truest and most divine one could imagine. Many believed me and followed my example. I feel it is my responsibility now to inform all these people that I have changed my mind


http://guruphiliac.blogspot.co...akes-his-kracki.html

Why did Freddy change his mind? From that website above, Freddy reports on Bhagavan in a way that certainly sounds like he's not at all a good shepherd for seekers of God:

•Bhagavan often promises people enlightenment, healing and miracles. In most cases these promises are not fulfilled (Bhagavan often mentions by when it should happen). Disciples usually try to cover up theses lies. Naturally many have become extremely disappointed, depressed or angry.

•They want as many as possible to realize that A&B created this Universe, that A&B are God in flesh and blood, that they are the true saviors of mankind.

•The otherwise kind dasas (A&B’s monks and nuns) mostly speak, think and do exactly what they are told to. They can tell any lie, even straight up in someone’s face, as long as A&B benefit from that lie.

•Many devotees have become fanatics and are prepared to sacrifice all they have, incl. their lives and do absolutely anything for A&B.

•Bhagavan/dasas say that if mankind does not cooperate with A&B, it is likely to soon be the end of the world. Bhagavan once said something like this: "If mankind will not cooperate with me, let it just drown in its own soup of misery".

•Exaggerations are common. In Dec 2003, Anandagiri promised that all on the 21 days courses would get fully enlightened. On a DVD (by M.J.Rabin), Bhagavan told that every participant except 3 got enlightened in the 21 days course (Sept. 2004). Several times, Bhagavan started to give "mass enlightenment" and even declared many enlightened (1993 etc.), until he suddenly changed his mind saying that the real thing will begin later instead.

•Dasas (and many devotees) easily become uneasy when the word "God" is used. Their only focus is on A&B. A Swedish TV star once asked Anandagiri (in July 2002): "What is God for you?", and Anandagiri said: "Bhagavan".

Freddy is apparently still into the "oneness" scene, and is associated with spirituality like "The Secret."
- http://livinginjoy.webs.com/

Whatever his disenchantment with Bhagavan, he seems to have gone on to start a similar movement, though he does not claim to be an avatar. That doesn't mean that his criticisms of Bhagavan are some kind of "sour grapes," of course. Those are all good points.

-----

I think we need to very skeptically regard anyone or any movement that promises some kind of enlightenment for a fee. That doesn't mean that people ought not pay good money for retreats or workshops that could benefit them spiritually, but it's this "guarantee" of spiritual experience that separates the true from the false. No Zen master would ever say that anyone who studies with him (or her) is guaranteed enlightenment, for example; some disciples practice for years before the great awakening happens.

These shaktipats and deekshas transmitted by Hindus and New Agers might or might not be inspired by the Spirit. You can have one without the other, so one has to look for the fruits of the Spirit to properly discern. What happens to those who become involved in these movements? What are the fruits? Weeds? Blessings? Red flags? Sometimes it can take awhile for things to sort out.

Obviously, from a Christian perspective, we can't go along with these claims attributed by Bhagavan or his disciples to be an incarnation of God. My friend, Michael, says he's never heard of any such claims. Someone, somewhere obviously has, it seems.

quote:

I think we need to very skeptically regard anyone or any movement that promises some kind of enlightenment for a fee. cut..... No Zen master would ever say that anyone who studies with him (or her) is guaranteed enlightenment, for example; some disciples practice for years before the great awakening happens. "


I very much agree with what you are saying here
Phil. When one looks at Michael's background one
can see many many years that prepared him for this
experience. I saw this right away and
did not attribute this only to this Oneness Training.


PHIL: "Obviously, from a Christian perspective, we can't go along with these claims attributed by Bhagavan or his disciples to be an incarnation of God. My friend, Michael, says he's never heard of any such claims. Someone, somewhere obviously has, it seems.

What Michael is saying could be very true. It would
be interesting to see how this got started. These
claims could be coming from someone/s who "needs" to
see Bhagavan & his students in this light. I would
think this is common in Hinduism.
Again just my 2 cents.

Shasha, Phil, and Mary Sue, thanks for your thoughts.

Almost all of A+B's senior guides, as well as Freddy, Kiara Windrider, and Christian Opitz ( the top European and US disciples) have left this movement that was supposed to unite the entire world. A+B were investigated on India's TV9 news for fraud a couple of days ago. Reportedly, poor people have taken out loans for deekshas and initiation courses.

At this point, there's too much outcry against A+B for me to not suspect they're spiritual predators, wolves in shepherds' clothing--but that's my opinion.

But a considerable concern as I was reading up on A+B has been me, and my own attitude was part of my reason behind this thread. I don't have time to talk about it this evening, but I struggle with how to be wise, respectful, compassionate and hopefully effective when I'm indignant about a perceived injustice or case of exploitation. I just get too agitated when I think I see a wolf, and I'd like advice on how to temper that.

Yosemite Sam here again--Phil, I read that Bhagavan toned down his public claims to God-hood some years ago, but he did used to make such claims. That may be why Michael hasn't heard that from him. However, in one of his articles, Michael does say "All is God. All is Amma Bhagavan."

I fully agree with what Shasha and Mt said on the Enlightenment thread about Michael--he seems like a lovely, humble person. I'm really puzzled, caring, and if angry at all, angry only at A+B's exploitation of people. More and more though, I believe "We wrestle not with flesh and blood..." and I feel sorry for A+B.

I'd rather follow the Good Shepherd through darkness than follow a wolf into A+B's brand of happiness, though.

I'd like to say more tomorrow.

And when I say I think A+B are exploiting people, I certainly agree that it's the making of unreasonable, enticing promises, not asking someone to pay for a retreat or services, that is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe:
..., but I struggle with how to be wise, respectful, compassionate and hopefully effective when I'm indignant about a perceived injustice or case of exploitation. I just get too agitated when I think I see a wolf, and I'd like advice on how to temper that.

I think it's normal to be revolted by abuse and exploitation, by spiritual leaders in particular. We don't need to respect the way they're running their program. Still, it seems they do have some impulse to do good, to share in a state they believe will bring others happiness, however deluded, greedy, and misguided they appear to be.

As for Eph. 6., this is precisely why I don't trust energy transmissions of any kind. The *person* may mean well, but the energy is where the "powers principalities of darkness" gain access to deeper parts of our psyche/soul.

That's all helpful, Shasha.

I'm wondering what questions I can have for myself when I feel moved to indignantly "pounce" on someone. I don't know how others experience their desire to speak up against a perceived injustice towards a vulnerable party, but for me it can feel like I turn into a somewhat out of control German Shepherd dog who wants to run down a predator. My inner guard dog needs some obedience training!

I've come up with some questions to chill out my instincts already.

First, obviously, I need to be sure I'm being as even as possible before I think I can make a judgment. In carpentry there's the saying "measure twice, cut once".

Then, too, I can ask myself if it's really any of my business to say anything, or if someone else is already involved in addressing an abuse.

I'm posting this now while I think of my other questions.

Next, I've been asking myself how much false self is involved in fueling the drive to pounce. Specifically, am I playing to a somewhat false identity/role of "crusader" or "indignant woman", or am I honestly moved to action in my most private heart?

My last question so far is to take care that what's driving me is not a desire to get my nip in at a downed underdog in order to identify with a pack.

Shasha, Phil, others--I'm trying to honestly respect people whose actions or beliefs I may disagree with, and even see the good in their points of view. Most of the time I don't find that too hard to do. And, though I for myself I've made up my own mind, the jury may be out on Amma and Bhagavan--they just tripped off my pouncing instinct and brought this tendency to the surface. So any more thoughts on how to temper indignation without going too far the other way?

By "going too far the other way" I mean I think the drive to defend the vulnerable has its place and it's not always a bad thing, as easily misused as it can be.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:


As for Eph. 6., this is precisely why I don't trust energy transmissions of any kind. The *person* may mean well, but the energy is where the "powers principalities of darkness" gain access to deeper parts of our psyche/soul.

Though I don't have any experience in that area to go by, I agree in that I think people often don't understand what they're doing. As much as I'd usually encourage experimentation, in this area I'm cautious. Whether or not it may be fully innocent natural energy in some cases, I question people's readiness to become enamored by it and use it without examining its origins and costs thoroughly. I keep picturing a book I had as a child about some barnyard animals who found a box of dynamite. The book was humorous and no-one got completely blown up, but still...My perspective, with no experience of energy transmissions, is limited, but I'm surprisingly lacking in curiosity in that area. I'm not condemnatory of energy work--I don't know enough about it--but I wouldn't want any sort of deeksha, shaktipat, or transmission through a person. I've felt what I consider to be God's hand on my soul, but, Him I know and trust. And I'm happy to accept loving contact with trusted friends through the ordinary means. I think the whole deeksha concept gives me the creeps because it feels intrusive. Bhagavan has claimed numerous times that by 2012 the whole world will be enlightened, willing or not.And people will be given deeksha just by being at a concert, listening to music played with that intent. Major creepiness to me.

I find, as well, that viewing some of these questions from the perspective of Eph. 6, rather than causing me to demonize someone, helps me feel their common humanity instead.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ariel Jaffe,

quote:

And, though I for myself I've made up my own mind, the jury may be out on Amma and Bhagavan--they just tripped off my pouncing instinct and brought this tendency to the surface. So any more thoughts on how to temper indignation without going too far the other way?

Ariel, Bhagavan and Amma are but one of many examples of Hindu guru types who've made something of a splash in the West. Actually, their influence and following is quite small; it just so happens that I'm a friend of Michael Milner, whom I hadn't contacted in years, and only recently learned of his involvement with the two. It's understandable to be upset about chicanery, but these are all grown-ups who are volunteering themselves to be influenced, and are paying to do so. It's a case of "buyer beware" with any spiritual leader or movement.

If this has all gotten under your skin in a way that makes you uncomfortable, just give it a rest for awhile and I'm sure things will balance out within you.

Phil,

Those are helpful thoughts. I did find I was able to relax when I felt "heard" --by things said by Derek, Shasha, and you--IOW, it wasn't so much a feeling of needing to be agreed with, as being allowed to speak.

I don't usually get wound up so easily, so I was thinking about this more, and there have been a few times in other situations where I was told I had to completely zip it when I was concerned about something. One situation was as the riding instructor at a very nice farm, where I saw things that were both abusive to the horses and about to result in people getting hurt from hurting horses acting up. I abided--with difficulty--by the farm owners insistance that I could not say anything.

The farm owners did hear me out though, and dealt with the abuse their own way, and I was able to chill out.

Something that I thought was different about Bhagavan was his saying that by 2012 everyone, willing or not, would become enlightened and be one, and people would receive deekshas without even knowing it. That feels so intrusive that it does still get under my skin, but, yeah, I can let that go.

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel:

I don't usually get wound up so easily, so I was thinking about this more, and there have been a few times in other situations where I was told I had to completely zip it when I was concerned about something.

I don't mean to imply that I felt pressure to zip it here, other than some pretty strong self-imposed pressure that was a source of some of my conflict about this. In the above story I had no doubt that I was assessing the horse/rider situation accurately, and in that case I did happen to be more knowledgeable than the farm owners. My point in making the comparison was that in thinking of another time when I felt similarly agitated, just being heard was helpful, as was knowing I was allowed to talk about my observations to the farm owners.

Here's an excerpt from a recent email I sent to my friend, Michael, concerning some of the statements on his website where he describes his experience of the oneness blessing communicated by Bhagavan and Amma. A lot of these points were already made by others on the "Christian spirituality and enlightenment" thread, so this is really a summary of those, with a few extra thrown in. All in all, it sets out some of the key sticking points in Christian-Hindu dialogue.

Michael's words are in italics.
- see http://www.onenessmovementflor...hy_Rev_Dr_Milner.htm and connecting links for larger context.

-----

1. I learned that my mind is not my mind. My thoughts are not my thoughts. The Mind is ancient. There is only one. It is the same for everyone, but it does not belong to us. You cannot change it or enlighten it.
- I disagree. Whatever universal mind is, we do have a personal stake in it, and we do think our thoughts, make acts of will, can change attitudes and behavior. People do it all the time. But, of course, if you really believe what you say, then the mind expressing to you in this email is not Phil's . . . then what? God? I surely do not claim this, and would not interpret any disagreement by you on any point to be the word of God.

2. I also learned my body is not my body. My body belongs to the Universe of which it is made. It’s not mine, and it’s really on automatic.
- The body, too, is real, though made of the "stuff" of the universe. Christ himself continues to live in a body; it is integral to who he is. We have a duty to care for our bodies; the universe will not do this for us, automatically.

In the two statements above, it sounds like you deny the existence of individual humans, or that we have responsibility for our lives (or both). Do you really mean to be implying this? I've invited several others to read your site, and that's the message they heard as well.

3. God is all there is. Even conflict and struggle is God. All is God. God, God, God, God, God! That’s all there is, all there was, and all there will ever be!
- There is also creation; it's real, even though completely contingent on God to hold it in existence. Every creature is real and possesses its own measure of freedom and intelligence. There is evil as well, and evil is not something God does. Evil belongs to the misuse of freedom by creatures. The suffering of creatures is also real. You know this from your own experience, I'm sure.

4. Amma added “I am giving you the Power. From this day forward, I will always be with you and my Power will flow through you...”
- "My" Power? "Always be with you." Only God could say that. You believe Amma is God?

5. Michael Milner is just a wonderfully made human bio-computer through which God, the Divine Consciousness, the Universe, is expressing and experiencing Itself. There is no one else at home here, and there never was...
- Yes, there's a biocomputer, but also a subjective agent of freedom and intelligence at work. Again, you deny the reality of human individual life and existence, or reduce it to an "accidental" through which a pantheistic divine entity experiences itself. That's Hinduism, not Christianity, and there's no reconciliation between the two on this pivotal point.

6. I am VERY happy and my life is filled with Divine Grace! ALL is God. ALL is Amma Bhagavan!
- All is "Amma Bhagavan"? So you do consider them to be God incarnate? You seem much more excited about Amma and Bhagavan in your sharing than you do Jesus Christ.

I've been in enough dialogues about these kinds of topics with many people through the years to know that the usual response to this kind of feedback is that one who hasn't had the experience just doesn't understand, and so is still an "Ego" caught up in illusions about being a real person with a separate individual existence. I'm not doubting the reality of these kinds of mystical experiences and perceptions, only the metaphysical conclusions drawn from them, as they can all be easily countered. From where I sit, it looks to me like you've moved from a Christian pathway to a more Hindu one, and I think that's radically different situation than walking a Christian-Taoist or Christian-Buddhist pathway as the guru or avatar comes to occupy the same kind of focus or devotion that Christ does. I don't see how one can have it both ways. . .

-----

Phil,

Maybe I'm off on this, but in my opinion from my experience, it's a loving thing you're doing for Michael in taking the time to draw him into clear thinking.


I've been reading John 10--about the Good Shepherd. Sheep aren't stupid, as Jesus well knew. They follow a trusted, proven leader. Jesus said His sheep--Michael included--know His voice, and that sheep will run away from a stranger--true enough. So why is Michael so injured, sick or vulnerable that he's fallen prey to A+B, in listening to them? That's not normal behavior even for a healthy "dumb" sheep--whoever coined the term "sheeple" knew little about real sheep, IMO.


More than a decade ago I had a whole bunch of major bad stuff happen almost at once. The first thing was a mostly intellectual faith crisis about Jesus and Judaism, followed immediatedly by the death of a significant friend. That was again promptly followed by the opportunity to fall into idolatry with a very present god--two attractive relationships with men (not quite simultaneously!) who didn't have my best interests in mind (as I didn't have theirs in mind really either). I'm telling briefly this embarassing detail because Michael's attachment to the tangible A+B after some losses made me wonder, as I think Shasha brought up, what's behind this. I was confronted by friends about my relationships, and I knew people really cared about me, but no-one fought for me --driving me to look hard at why I'd given my internal wolf run of the place-- fighting for me when I was vulnerable; enough to dare to challenge me to probe deeply into the real reason behind my foolish behavior. I wish they had.

I may well be off in wondering if Michael's situation bears any resemblance to where I was. I just know for certain that I wish someone had fought for me when I was vulnerable to idolatry. I've been around horses my whole life, but sheep for less time, and I don't claim to be an expert on either animal. But I've seen from when I had sheep that Jesus knew what He was talking about in saying sheep will follow only a trusted leader and run away from any other call. They aren't stupid at all, but wise in looking out for each other; as a species they wouldn't have survived if they didn't take turns on guard duty. Horses, for example, almost invariably will only lay down to sleep when another is standing up, able to watch out for predators in their place. I don't think we're wired, either, to constantly be on watch, so our choice of a guardian--the only truly Good Shepherd-- makes all the difference in the world.

edit: Well, now that I feel embarrassed, I'd like to indulge in a bit of defense by saying that I only got into stupid behavior in relationships when I'd pretty nearly lost all my faith but for a shred, and I did end them as I found my way back to partial faith over the slow course of a couple of years.

I was reading Shasha's comments about Todd Bently on another thread, and, as much as I think it's usually best to mind your own business, and being our "brother's keeper" can easily be abused, maybe that's another example of someone who was not lovingly challenged to figure out what's really fueling the addiction. That's just my thought.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ariel Jaffe,

Ariel,

It's a tricky thing to intervene in someone's life, isn't it. On the one hand, we are called to care for one another, but at the same time, when is it our business to point out certain issues?

In my experience, I see it takes a rather unusual maturity when someone is 1) aware of their particular weakness/sins, and also 2) willing to submit to being accountable or correctable on those fronts. I had one person tell me "Please don't ask me how I'm doing with X (addiction); it just makes me feel uncomfortable because I feel judged and don't want to talk about it." In reality (what I see as reality), I truly care about this person, and I don't have a tinge of being judgmental, that she's totally projecting, but she can't receive that concern from me.

I also see this a lot with people who are into some sexual immorality. People around them tend to be silent and therefore approving. I asked one woman who had just emerged from a long-term extra-marital affair, "Where were your friends!? Why didn't they confront you with what you were doing?!" After eating of the bitter fruit of her choices, she agreed that her friends, who knew full well of her actions, had really failed to love her.

About Michael, I also had the thought that a part of him must be crying out for help in his public display of his journey. And I agree that Phil's letter is a loving, required step. I've lived through delusional times and wished people had tried harder to protect me. At the same time, I doubt I would have listened. Traditionally, I've not learned well except through getting burned after insisting I need to have my own experiences.
I have put way too much stock in my own wisdom and understanding. I imagine a spiritual director has to spend a good deal of time helping people live in reality. One pastor pointed out: "If you deny reality, you deny God because God can only be found in the REAL world."

Yes, Shasha, it is tricky and I don't know well how to navigate those areas. I know I too tend to learn things the hard way, by making my own mistakes. But in looking back at my own experience as someone who knew beforehand that sexual intimacy had only one safe place for expression simply because it's meaningful by its very nature, and who nevertheless fell into that consolation when I felt utterly deserted by God and a friend, I think even then I could have stopped--not from nagging, but by someone helping me figure out my motivations. (Obviously, now, I should have gone to a counselor.) And with a friend of mine who later did something similar to me, I was quiet because I thought, "Who am I to say anything?" She had an abortion and told no-one but me, then her boyfriend was killed in a car accident, too. She's had a hard time recovering. I think now maybe I was just the person who could have said something to her, with some understanding. But I didn't want to look interfering.


John 10:4-5 is what I was thinking of yesterday: "...his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." I tend to think it's inevitable that Christians will stray, and perhaps it just about is inevitable. But when I see one get really into some other "god" in a major way, I tend to give up hope for them, thinking people can't be changed from following the path they're on, and they're going to do what they're going to do, and make their own mistakes, and it's all in God's hands. I do believe they are in God's hands. But I'm thinking now Jesus knows sheep wandering and getting lost may happen, but it's not normal and some unhealed sickness underlies the lostness of someone who once followed His voice.


Phil,

I hope it didn't sound like I think Michael is your responsibility. I simply meant that since you did write to him, I think it was a loving thing to do. And ideally we'd all have people do things like that for each of us.

Michael and I have had a couple more exchanges but I think we've come to an impasse. So be it.

- - -

Check out the latest webcast from Bhagavan:
- http://www.onenessmovementflor.../webcast-3-20-10.htm

quote:

So now we go into the five teachings:

Repeat it after me:

The first is 'your thoughts are not your thoughts'.
The second is 'your mind is not mind'.
The third is your body is not your body.
Fifth is 'All things are happening automatically'.
Sixth is 'I as a person do not exist.'
These are the teachings.

So now, as I say it you repeat it after me in your native tongue (7 times),
which if it happens to be English, I will be speaking in English, you
will repeat it in whatever language is your native tongue.

So here we go now. I'll make a slight change in it,

~ thoughts are not mine

~ mind is not mine

~ this body is not my body

~ all things are happening automatically

~ I as a person do not exist

Who or what is it that is making this statement?
You are saying mind is not there but somebody is there watching. What is that?
So it is obvious that something is existing - that is satta -existence. What is not there is identification, I am doing things is not there. The person who says 'this is mine' is not there.

The Atman - This atman is what we call the unborn and the undying, the
unchanging and the imperishable. Water cannot wet, knife cannot cut. It is the eternal ever present “I”, the “Presence”. That's what is there.

This is naught but the non-reflecting aspect of human consciousness.
- see https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...72410135/m/241106781

Big deal!

Michael seems to me to have a real capacity for devotion; it saddens me to see his heart placed in hands other than Christ's. But it does look like that's indeed his choice for now, and "so be it" then.

I'll continue to pray for him. While trying to respect the privacy of his choices, I still wonder what happened in the course of his relationship with Christ---some rough patch?--- that would make A+B's teaching attractive to him.