--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Girish got no game? The rise of trust-fund gurus. > > Shemp's points about Girish got me thinking...is he the Paris Hilton > of gurus? How would people relate to him if he tries to take over the > whole show after MMY? > > Pros for Girish include his dynastic relationship with MMY. It is > like the Shia thing. He is part of Mohammad's family so he has a > clear channel to the source. Indians would probably be impressed with > his family relationship and his obvious wealth. I think he is better > positioned for the East. > > On the Sunni side we have the idea that the movement should elect a > person who the most people can rally around. But this is problematic. > (Best word in this whole post. Sounds like a 50's invention) In the > West we love gurus with a "story" and Girish has none. One of MMY's > charms was his story. I loved to think of him sitting in the Himalayas > for two years with few thoughts like Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times, > so wasted on his "Self" that he could hardly move. I thought of him as > an innocent monk in the library in South India, going to the temple > every day oblivious to his future mission. (Of course this blows apart > any idea that Guru Dev actually gave him any instructions before he > died. MMY's story of the "innocent" start of the movement is in > direct contrast to the myth of his "mission".) I saw him as the > charming little imp in Hermit in the House, running up the Olsens > phone bill to start up his business, but turning off the lights as if > he caught the hint that he was overstaying his welcome. Even the > Beatles story worked for a while till his ambitions became too great > and he started looking more like he was using them instead of > enlightening them. (As an aside I always felt that it was his > insistence about using the Beatles for his marketing that was the > breaking point, not his pawing the disciples. The Beatles were sick of > people trying to cash in on their fame) After all these charming > stories MMY hit his power stride. Probably him starting the "World > Government" was the end of his most cute puppy-like era. Once his > true ambitions kicked in as a "world leader" ranting to other actual > world leaders, he lost a lot of charm IMO. He began to resemble The > Donald. For people who longed for the "good old days" there is Ravi > Shankar who has plenty of the old MMY charisma and charm. MMY without > the "world domination" ambitions. (yet?) > > Girish has none of this. No story, no game. He has a Paris Hilton > vibe. Even though Paris is fabulously famous she has little ability > to influence people to do anything, which a guru needs to control an > organization. She gets paid to wave at crowds at new club openings > but the kids aren't ready to take any instructions from her. > Girish's claim to fame is that he was born with the gold ghee lamp in > his hand. So how can he excite any fantasy in his followers? He is > just another dude like us but with a famous relative, he is a Spelling > kid, or another rich rocker's-model wife genetic freak. I never met a > guy who inherited great wealth who didn't have the "entitlement > disease". (or is it all just jealousy projection?) George Bush seems > full of his entitlement and self confidence based on all the wrong > reasons. (growing up with people kissing your ass seems like a bad way > to develop personality.) Girish needs an image branding overhaul. He > could start with a little Katie Couric style Photoshop slimming of his > gulab jamun fortified cheeks, and stop sitting in front of his own > huge picture looking like his tongue might shoot out and pull a pundit > boy into his huge mouth. > > Does the younger generation (excuse me sonny, can you had me my cane) > have the same need for Gurus that we boomers did? I guess it is a > part of human nature and our primate past to want an alpha to lead us, > but it seems as if this system is breaking down a bit. We have gone a > long way through every kind of scandal of all our religious and > political leaders to be innocent enough again. The kids brought up on > a diet of John Stewart seem to have "snark" where we had hero worship. > I don't sense that the younger generation is as apt to buy into one > person having figured it all out. Of course they also don't strike me > as a generation of readers, so I'm not sure how that will be abused by > people with image power. "Whatever" may have replaced "far out" but it > requires the same amount of neuron activity. (zero) > > So without MMY at the helm the movement will be left with leaders who > either got handed the keys to the vault, like Girish, or people who > have been in the position of lying to people for MMY for years like > Bevan and Neil P. Nandkashore is much too much of an oddball IMO to > take over anything. The Rajas are too much like oversized children at > a silly birthday party to be leaders of anything. > > My guess is that most posters on FFL represents the future of the > movement. People who are just doing their own thing and not giving > any one guru their power. The young'uns will have to find their own > myths and it may be a completely different kind of leader. If I was > being optimistic I would say that they learned from our mistakes > concerning leaders. If I am being cynical I would say that some 3D > hologram created by a mega corporation is going to take over the lot > of them. It will occasionally flash them like Paris getting out of a > car, and keep them dazzled with BS and bluster claiming to be all > powerful and all knowing. At the rest home we can all sit around and > reminisce about how cool it was when MMY blessed our beads.
Curtis! Best post I've read in ages. You nailed it brother.
