--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think my example are fine. They show that people's reverence for > another person has more to do with their own needs than the person > they revere. What happened afterwards is irrelevant except that it > dramatizes that people are often wrong about the person's qualities. > > Now in Guru Dev's case I can see people thinking highly of him the way > people give the Pope a lot of credit. Even though the Pope, IMO > supports some ideas that don't serve our time well. But to be > generous to Guru Dev, I can see him as a Pope like figure who did his > job well and supported the ideas of his antiquated tradition. As far > as why people revered him I don't think either of us has any better > evidence. Gandhi followers did not join in this high regard because > they were fighting institutions like the one Guru Dev represented in > order to bring some more justice to India. So he was not universally > revered, he was revered by people who agreed with the orthodox Hindu > perspective he represented. > > I am only a materialist compared to many posters here. I am not any > pure ideology. Your skepticism about my evidence is warranted. When > it comes to my take on Guru Dev I am just spouting my opinion based on > very little information about him. This lack of information is also > the state for people who make a big deal about his life. They are > claiming that he was really special and I am saying "I don't see any > evidence for that yet." All the conjecture about him is just that. > > Personal presence is a quality universally quoted from Mao's > followers. It means nothing to me. I don't doubt that people who > revered Guru Dev felt loads of it. This is an area that people suck > in. People are terrible at judging a person from afar and it gets > worse in groups. > > So why make any conjecture about his mental state pro or con? It is > just a piece for discussion, and it has worked. There have been some > good responses including yours. I was sincere in my opinions as others > have been in theirs. I judge Guru Dev's behavior from a few facts of > his life if we accept them. > > He left home at an incredibly early age. I asked my social worker > friend what kind of kid leaves home at age 9. Abused kids are the > only ones she has ever come across. Kids naturally want the support > of their family. It is highly unnatural to want to leave. His > supposed spiritual mission is something that requires a lot of beliefs > that I don't share. It is also possible that he had an attachment > disorder. He did not feel anything for his family. In this > possibility he may have been treated well, but was unable to feel > anything towards his family. The idea of a child being allowed to > leave the house and fend for himself is horrific and a crime in this > country. Think about his parents for a moment. This was not normal > in India either. > > So I am just stating my opinion that I think he had social problems. > He seemed to do OK being treated as a God, but he couldn't just hang > as an equal with other people before he was elevated to that status.
Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research.
