--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > LBS, please summarise and minimilize your point for short attention > span people like me....thanks.
****** Fundamentalist politics may have infiltrated Amma's organization, and this would be regrettable, but perhaps inevitable, given India's current political climate and the nature of our times. Nevertheless, I do not find Amma's presence or teaching to be supportive of Hindu fundamentalism, but something of a more universal nature, and that is what seems to attract her many devotees. The allegations of mischaracterization of her "charitable" activities is more troublesome to me, but I haven't seen enough evidence on any of this stuff to reach firm conclusions about it. Probably some pro-TM people are gleeful to see Amma criticized the way MMY has been criticized, and for that very reason some of this stuff may be suspect. However, it will all come out in the wash, and for that reason I think the discussion is a good thing. As for your insistance that I should edit for your convenience, I can only hope that you will return the favor. ;-) L B S > > > > --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Any discussion of a spiritual group should include, somewhere near > the beginning, the > > obligatory disclaimers about Kali Yuga. > > > > Don't get me wrong:�I am not lobbying for a fundamentalist > interpretation of HIndu > > cosmology. Just the same: we live in a materialistic, corrupt age > and we shouldn't be > > surprised to find corruption and materialism ANYWHERE. > > > > Still, such allegations are disappointing, whether true or untrue. > They are disappointing if > > true because we expected better from the organization (and by > association, the guru), and > > they are disappointing if false because it is discouraging to > consider the motivations of > > those who post. > > > > Let me just address two aspects of the allegations brought up so > far. > > > > Regarding the "hijacking" of Amma's movement by the Hindu > fundamentalists (RSS, BJP, > > etc): > > > > The marriage of religion and politics seldom works out well in any > modern culture. It is an > > unholy alliance, and co-dependant to boot. It is always about > power; it is usually driven by > > the politicians, because power is such a natural part of their > working life. But the religions > > want the power as well; they feel that they deserve it because, > after all, they are the > > representatives of the One True God. Historically, religion seems > to suffer more in the > > downside than the politicians, but there will always be exceptions. > > > > It's difficult for TM people and other New Agers to see Hindus as > fundamentalists; we are > > more accustomed to thinking of them as spiritually advanced. And > besides, many of us > > adhere to fundamentalist beliefs ourselves. Nevertheless, the > Hindutva movement in India > > is quite powerful, and a good deal of blood has been shed there as > a result of its activities. > > > > On the other hand, I have met intelligent, good hearted Sannyasins > who think the BJP and > > RSS are the Good Guys. That is to say, among the religious, many > favor them. > > > > It is not surprising, therefore, to hear that they have a presence > in Amma's movement. > > Indian politicians are constantly seeking to expand their power > base; India's parliamentary > > and electoral systems necessitate aggressive cultivation of "vote > banks". Since Amma has > > such a large reputation, it is a no-brainer to conclude that > political implications abound. > > > > This is an unfortunate thing for Amma's movement, to whatever > extent it is true. At some > > point there will be a change in the political climate, and the > blowback will be painful. > > > > However, I would like to make one other point about the politics. > My perception is that > > Amma is not about politics. That it could have wormed its way into > her organization is > > understandable, perhaps inevitable, but I don't hear Amma herself > preaching the values of > > Hindutva. Her message is much more universal, and that is what I > see people responding > > to in her presence. > > > > Now the second thorny issue: possible misrepresentation > of "charitable" activities. I think > > that many among us find this to be the more difficult and painful > allegation to deal with. > > Old-time TMers, for example, typically got disgusted with TMO > commercialism years ago > > (if not decades), and have been comfortable, if not gleeful, in > making the comparison > > between the two organizations (or cults, if we are really going > straight up here). The loss > > of moral superiority is a bitter pill to swallow. > > > > Based on previous experience, it is predictable that most of what > has been alleged here > > will be denied by some and rationalized by others. Parts of it may > also turn out to be > > bullshit, pure and simple. Some will claim that Amma didn't know > about it, others will say, > > "Are you nuts? She knew about EVERYTHING that happened in her > movement!" We have > > heard all this before. > > > > Frankly, the only part that surprised me personally was the > misrepresentation of the > > charitable activities, which I now accept as a possibility but not > as a proven thing. This will > > shake out for awhile and eventually I will decide for myself what > I think the truth of it is. > > > > I'm sure that many of you will have noted a certain irony in the > situation. This chat group, > > viewed by many TM faithful as anti-TM in nature, is now seeing > criticisms raised against a > > group that many in the TM fold regard as the TMO's biggest local > competitor. Perhaps that > > accounts for the slight aroma of "Gotcha!" that permeates some of > the posts. > > > > I think we have to accept that what is sauce for the goose is > sauce for the gander. While I > > find these allegations disappointing (notice that I don't call > them "disclosures" because I > > don't think we have enough info here to reach sweeping > conclusions), I think that in the > > big picture it is better to have the discussion than not to have > it. > > > > L B S To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
