The George Burns portrayal of God in Carl Reiner’s 1977 film, “Oh, God!” was/is a great cover for the more generic divinity that resides in each and every one of us. Ultimately, my goal (these journal postings considered in total) is to explain why God’s logical consistency is connected necessarily to the evolution of our knowledge of the universe, i.e., knowledge which preserves and perpetuates freedom, life, love, and reverence for “the God that makes all possible.”
Yoga Yes--Secret Teachings—No
Yoga Graduation One Day Later
My Rebuttal
1) We were told that when semen reached our head, we would be
liberated. I don't think so! The fluid in your head (lachrymal fluids)
is not the same as the fluid in your testicles.
2) We were told everybody did not favor the birth of the "new age." It
had enemies who were not spiritual. Theses enemies worked to prevent
the growth of spirit. Times were going to get worse before they got
better, therefore we should learn Karate. As far as I was concerned
violence begets violence. How could you be pure, and at the same time,
be ready to take off someone else's head?
3) The spiritual teachers of today would become leaders in the "new
age." Sahash was one of those teachers, and, when required, he would
take on the mantle of a leader. "Leader" presupposed hierarchy and
condescension. How could a leader be ego-free? Leading reinforces ego
and/or creates it!
4) Guru's could pass Guruship on to their sons. Sahash told us how a
son of a guru was an aggressive nine-year old before he was called to
serve God. He then became a warrior who admonished the faithful to
pick up their swords and fight for the truth. According to this
warrior guru, the greatest event possible was to die for the truth.
The stars will fall from the sky before some things change. Man cannot
liberate himself from himself and still be himself. How could a father
say, "love your brother" while his son says "pick up the sword and
fight for what's right?" One may argue defense in many legitimate
ways, but you will never find an Army of egoless soldiers. It just
won't happen. And further, how original is it to "fight on the side of
truth" and then glorify "dying for this truth?" This justification has
been the motivation behind one religious war after another. We have
had one person die on the cross already, why do we need more?
Sahash said that his teachings had been passed down from guru to guru
without losing their purity. Yet, one Saint could be sublime and
passive, while the other could be aggressive and outspoken. Can "the
truth" change that fast and still remain "the truth?" How can I both
"love my neighbor" and "thirst for death in the service of truth?" As
far as I could tell, only the Vikings were able to do that. Their
greatest reward was, after death, to fight alongside Odin, their main
god, for eternity. In their heaven, they could both love and kill
their neighbors! But, I like to think we have come a ways since then.
Aren't we a bit more civilized? "Dying for truth" has always been and
always will be a political (not spiritual) maxim. After all, whose
truth is it anyway? "Dying for truth" or "rally round the flag, boys,"
has always been "the call" to motivate and the control the troops.
That "call" not only mocks my intelligence, it also makes a mockery
out of all religion.
5) Teacher's make sacrifices to help others. Sacrifice presupposes
attachment. It elevates the ego. If it weren't for the ego, there
wouldn't be anything to sacrifice. Hegel summed it up when he said,
"It did not matter what the determination or content was which could
distinguish being from something else; whatever gave being content
would, ultimately, prevent being from maintaining itself in its
purity. Being was pure indetermination and emptiness. Nothing could be
apprehended in it."
6) Teachers should stand out. They should act like Saints; and they
should wear white. Wearing white, according to Sahash, would remind a
person to "think like a Saint," and if you thought like a Saint, you
would become one. How idealistic! How can somebody be pure when he has
to walk around proving his purity? Gurus wear white so they will be
identified as gurus and not as hippies. That way, again, according to
Sahash, they will become respected teachers. "Identification" is the
key word here. Need I say more? I can’t' imagine a better form of ego
enhancement, and I've tried.
A guru was supposed to look and act like a Saint. I had a hard time
believing that "acting like a Saint" made you a Saint. The most
obvious contradiction, almost verging on downright stupidity, was to
say, "Looking like a Saint, would make you one." Sahash acknowledged
his un-Sainthood, but he believed that being treated like a Saint
would make him act more saintly, and, eventually, that would turn him
into a Saint. Good luck!
7) Guru Bhajan unselfishly allowed his picture to be taken so his
devotees could meditate upon his eyes and thereby gain spiritual
strength. An expression of taut eyebrows and a piercing look,
characterized his picture. (Gurus were not supposed to get their
picture taken.) Guru Bajan "sacrificed" this no, no, for the sake of
his students. Here again, we see an act of ego and/or exhibitionism.
8) There was too much talk in the first person. For instance, when we
sang George Harrison's song, "My Sweet Lord," Sahash had us substitute
Sahash's mantra and the name of guru Bhajan for the name of Krishna
and the Krishna' mantra; that kind of "blatant attachment" made it
hard for me to want to "lose myself" in the group.
9) "God is all-benevolent." The following criticism is not just
directed at Sahash and his group, it is also directed at The Concept
as such. Sahash said, "You must sing the praises of the Lord to
liberate yourself from karma." He said, "The people of India are
starving because they have bad karma, and Americans are not starving
because they have good karma." What kind of value system would bless
America and condemn third world countries?
If God was all-benevolent, He would be all inclusive (He wouldn't
practice exclusivity and He wouldn't be a He). He would, therefore,
accept everybody into His kingdom. Karma shouldn't matter. Accepting
Jesus shouldn't matter. Why was the door to the afterlife always
guarded by "this or that praise onto the Lord?" Why would God want a
landlord-serf relationship with His worshipers? For everything there
is a purpose, turn, turn, turn. What is the purpose of a Lord who
requires praises? What is the purpose of a Lord who needs to lord it
over the rest of us? I don't know. I want to know. Anyway, after
listening to Sahash, I knew I could no longer be a part of his group.
In fact, I became very upset. It was as if I was having a panic attack!
No comments:
Post a Comment