--- 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.
