--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think the term "incest" is overkill. The relationship > between a guru and his disciples is, or can and should be, very > profound and emotionally intimate. From my perspective, it is a > sacred relationship and should be pure. It is ultimately the guru's > responsibility to keep it that way, since he, by definition, should > be "established" enough to be above temptation. If he is not, then > he is not a first-rate guru, and is probably not qualified to guide > others to enlightenment.
I don't completely agree with all of this, but it's an entirely reasonable position. However: > If he violates the sacredness of the > guru-disciple relationship, the psychic/spiritual harm it may do > can easily be as damaging as incest. Perhaps in some extreme cases; I seriously doubt in all. I think you may be underestimating the harm incest can cause. In any case, such behavior needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I have the feeling you didn't read, or didn't much consider, the points I made in my alt.m.t posts, because you didn't really address any of them. The issue for me is not whether guru-follower sexual exploitation is a Bad Thing; it's the manipulative use of loaded language to evoke an emotional, extreme, uncritical negative response that may or may not be appropriate in a given instance. As I suggested, it's like calling someone with an authoritarian personality a Nazi. > on 12/2/05 5:14 PM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> I've taken it up with you because you so obviously > >>> wholeheartedly approve of it, having used it to > >>> justify labeling MMY a "pervert.">> > >> > >> Vaj needs to specify and clarify exactly what he is referring to. He > >> just uses the phrase to make himself sound good. > > > > He first used it on alt.m.t after he had claimed MMY > > was a "pervert" (referring to him as "Pervarishi") and > > been challenged on it. The idea was that since spiritual > > teachers may take something of a parental role toward > > their followers, they all constitute a spiritual "family," > > and therefore sexual activity of the teacher with said > > followers constitutes "spiritual incest." > > > > Just for kicks, I dug up the posts I made on the > > topic on alt.m.t. Let's give Vaj a second chance > > to address what I said: > > > > "Spiritual incest" is a ridiculous concept. Men in > > positions of power have always used their power and > > charisma to compel sexual favors from female > > subordinates. The syndrome is not limited to the > > spiritual context, and to call it "incest"--so that > > it can then be called "perversion"--in any context is > > absurd. > > > > An older man can be a "father figure" to a younger > > woman in any relationship, including a marriage. > > Does their having sex thus constitute incest? > > > > What's perverted is the misuse of terms, because > > it dilutes the proper usage and trivializes the > > suffering of the victims of the real thing, like > > referring to a person with authoritarian tendencies > > as a Nazi. > > > > =================== > > > > Two further thoughts: > > > > First, the effect of this kind of misuse of terms is > > to reduce words that characterize a very specific and > > particularly horrible kind of misbehavior to mean > > "behavior I don't like." It *borrows* the horror of > > the specific misbehavior in an attempt to legitimize > > rabid condemnation of a very different level of > > misbehavior--usually because one is primarily > > interested in condemning the *individual* rather than > > the behavior itself. > > > > It's a thoroughly dishonest thought-stopper, in other > > words, which in this case aims to elicit the extreme > > level of outrage associated with the incest taboo and > > direct it at an individual who has not committed incest > > at all, bypassing juducious critical thinking about the > > actual behavior involved. > > > > Such behavior is reprehensible enough on its own terms. > > Why the need to "borrow" an additional level of outrage > > it does not merit? > > > > Second, when a younger woman seduces a man old enough > > to be her father, does that constitute incest and hence > > "perversion"? > > > > There's nothing wrong with invoking the psychological > > father-daughter dynamic in any relationship involving > > an older man and a younger woman. But to then take > > the huge leap of characterizing it as "incest," and > > yet another huge leap to call it "perversion," is at > > best extraordinarily sloppy thinking, and at worst a > > malicious attempt at slander. > > > > ==================== > > > > There are two aspects to the incest taboo: one is > > biological, the fact that the offspring of incest are > > more likely to have defective genes, which they then > > pass down to their own offspring. In that sense, the > > incest taboo is a species survival trait; we're > > hardwired to react negatively to it. > > > > The other aspect is purely social and has nothing > > *whatsoever* to do with the biological aspect. The > > social aspect involves the exploitation of an unequal > > power relationship for selfish purposes and its > > negative psychological consequences. As such, > > of course, it is by no means unique to incestuous > > relationships. > > > > The notion of "spiritual incest" obviously trades > > only on this second aspect, but it deceptively > > invokes the instinctive biological revulsion of the > > first aspect, when in fact that is completely > > unrelated to the nature of the misbehavior. > > > > It's just deeply, deeply intellectually dishonest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
