Posted November 17th, 2005 by assistantmummer(#15905)
First a quick thank you to Niriha for those translations of rainbow
(ramdhanu) songs. It was really kind and thoughtful of you! I'll try
and say more in a future posting.
Doris, you raised the issue of how someone who's accepted a spiritual
master of Sri Chinmoy's calibre can see bad in him. I don't find this
hard to believe, because I'm a moody person. No matter how much I like
someone or something, if I'm in a bad mood I may feel critical of
everyone and everything. Those who are good will seem bad to me. This
is human nature, though perhaps I am worse than others. Sri Chinmoy
writes:
"Hate is often an obverse form of love. You hate someone whom you
really wish to love but whom you cannot love. Perhaps he himself
prevents you. Hate is a disguised form of love. You can only hate
someone that you have the capacity to love because if you are really
indifferent, you cannot even get up enough energy to hate him. Hatred
is the frustration or blockage of normal, free-flowing love."
[unofficial version]
Mate Szekely, if you threw me in the water I would sink like a stone,
so I must bow to you who have swum the English Channel. My
achievements are more modest: the occasional well put together
collection of words. I see what you mean about...
> ...behaviour very similar to the street beggars attitude.
> By trying to understand homeless people's attitude to
> life, I foud a striking similarity.
>
> Very often they got to a point in life, when they found it
> easier not to solve any problem any more, rather lie down
> on the street, criticise everyone and everything, or only
> one person, or one group, or the government, or God, or
> whoever they feel is responsible for [their] misfortune
> instead of realizing how close to themselves the source of
> their misfortune lies.
I myself have encountered that very hoity-toity kind of bum who feels
his new solution of lying in the gutter is so far superior to the days
when he bathed, shaved, and tried to make some positive contribution.
He is eager to persuade others to likewise sip the swill. ;-)
Some people become very bitter. They leave the spiritual path and say:
"All those years I spent praying and meditating I was just being a
fake. Everything is fake: fake guru, fake path, fake seekers..." This
is a kind of deep spiritual sickness that sometimes afflicts people.
It is the typical apostate mentality which tries to draw every circle
counterclockwise.
But even strangers who do not care to follow Sri Chinmoy's path, when
they just come to visit or if they meet Sri Chinmoy casually at a
function, they come away with a very good feeling - a special kind of
joy that they have never felt before. It is tangible even to casual
visitors. When they meet students of Sri Chinmoy, they see there is
such light shining from their faces!
Each spiritual master, no matter how polite, sweet, kind and
compassionate, has the task of helping the seeker dissolve the ego
shell that creates a sense of separativity from God. In the Gospel of
St. Thomas, the Christ says: "If you bring forth what is within you,
what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is
within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
When seekers work slowly and steadily to dissolve the hard, brittle
ego shell through love for God and constant self-giving, they grow in
Light and Delight. But sometimes an unbalanced person may suffer a
paranoid reaction, perhaps because they are holding onto the ego shell
very tightly, and they have lost the feeling of inner sweetness.
In terms of the inner connection, Sri Chinmoy is like a close personal
friend or family member to those of his students who have accepted him
wholeheartedly. So if they go through a period where their nature is
rebelling, he may be subjected to the worst in them, as a close friend
or family member might be.
Some teachers are like philosophers: they present the teachings but
leave it absolutely up to the student to apply them. Other teachers
care enough, dare enough, and also have the inner capacity to
personally help the student in his or her struggles. This kind of
teacher is fully involved, and takes a personal interest in the
student's well-being and progress. So if the student's nature rebels
against the spiritual life, the student may also rebel in a very
personal way against the teacher.
Perhaps Western seekers are more carried away by their emotions of the
moment, and do not see the connection with a teacher as something
sacred and enduring, something to be respected even in times when
one's own mood is not good or one's nature is rebelling.
If someone is constantly creating problems for themselves and others,
Sri Chinmoy may ask them to leave the Centre. One can have spiritual
love for someone, and yet also set boundaries about what type of
conduct is acceptable. Each person is responsible for maintaining a
certain standard, for maintaining their inner balance. It is a
question of using one's inner freedom wisely.
In a Time magazine article from May 8, 1995, Lawrence Mondi quotes
Christine Gorman:
"By all accounts, the descent into delusion is gradual. Everyone has
experienced slights, insults or failures at one time or another, and
most people find some way to cope. Or, if they don't, a trusted friend
or family member may persuade them to forget the past and get on with
their lives. But if they cannot shake off the sense of humiliation,
they may instead nourish their grudges and start a mental list of all
the injustices in their lives. Rather than take a critical look at
themselves, they blame their troubles on 'the company,' for example,
or 'the government' or 'the system.' ... Often these aggrieved people
fall in with others sharing the same point of view. The group helps
them to rehearse their grievances, ensuring that the wounds remain
open, and exposes them to similar complaints. As a result, paranoia
blossoms and spreads."
So Mate, this adds to your point about people who get caught up in the
blame game, or who are looking for someone to feed the monkey on their
backs. Back in worldly life, if they get the wrong kind of therapist,
one who is not so much a compassionate healer as an anti-cult
activist, then they go through a slow mentoring process which ends up
invalidating such a big chunk of their lives! They may have asked for
simple help in adjusting to secular society, but what they get is an
indoctrination into ultra-rationalist and ultra-individualist beliefs.
This completely negates the spiritual experiences that formed a big
part of their lives for 20 or 30 years.
I have seen this happen to people over time. It's as if a window in
their lives - a window through which they could once see sunlight -
has gradually been closed. They are repeatedly told (in effect) that
there is no sunlight to be seen - it was only an illusion. "Normal"
people don't have spiritual experiences; "normal" people don't go in
for anything more than church on Sunday or temple on Friday; "normal"
people put money, career and self-interest first. This kind of therapy
turns spiritual seekers into second-rate conformists!
It seems a rather sick reflection of our times when people who feel
love for God and a sense of community involvement are treated as if
such natural feelings are symptoms of a "cult illness." Some people go
from a life where there is constant spiritual opportunity to a life
where refilling their prescription for anti-depressants and persuading
others to hire exit counselors becomes their chief preoccupation.
Most therapists are compassionate healers; but some anti-cult
therapists will manipulate a person whose need to adjust to life
outside a spiritual community leaves them feeling vulnerable. The
therapist uses that vulnerability to indoctrinate them into a negative
community - an ex-cult "support group" where the subtext of all
discussion is how bad "cults" are. That is the therapist's personal
agenda - it was not originally the patient's.
Of course, people have a right to choose any therapy or philosophy
they want. But there is a line which some people cross where they
become actively involved in harassing their former friends and
teacher. Involvement in a hate group causes them to lose sight of the
basic tenets of honesty and decency. As Viddyut implies, on their own
these people might have naturally discovered "a 'middle path' for
themselves" which would allow them to proceed with a positive outlook.
But when they get sidetracked by anti-cult groups into hate
activities, and lend their name to harassment and vilification, they
get locked into a negative cycle like that mentioned in the Time
magazine article.
Such a person develops the mental habit of hating and blaming. They
simply don't see how foolish and counterproductive this is. They can
always find an excuse to continue the blame game. As I discussed in
message #9572, it is a type of stalking behavior. They are trying to
hold onto people who were once close to them, but in a troubled and
destructive way. They rationalize their behavior by demonizing the
victims (who are perfectly good people). They claim to be on some kind
of mission to rid society of "cults" or some such nonsense; but it is
just sick, mean-spirited (and often illegal) behavior. Some of these
people use ten or more different aliases to mask their activities, but
they have such a distinctive symptomology that it's easy to identify
them by their fixations.
To continue to hate and blame, to maintain some twisted connection
with the person hated and blamed, and to self-generate a hateful image
of the victim - this is all part of the same cycle of obsession. As
people stuck in this cycle continue to breath each other's fumes in
the closed environs of an anti-cult group, they egg each other on to
ever more illegal acts, sacrificing jobs and careers in the process.
But as Viddyut agreed, "The great thing about banging your head
against a stone wall is that it feels so good when you stop!"
One can describe two very different approaches taken by therapists to
treat people's suffering. One approach tells the patient she is a
victim, she must struggle to remember all the ways in which she has
been abused, she must name and a confront an abuser, and only then
will she have the "courage to heal." Another approach says: "How can
we make your life better today? How can we help you set goals and move
forward in your life? How can we get you functioning and help you take
responsibility for your life?"
Good therapy helps people move on in their lives to whatever new
positive choices await them. But bad therapy keeps them frozen in the
past, lost in a cycle of blame, forever trying to mete out public
opprobrium to some imagined wrongdoer. As discussed in message #4998,
bad therapy often involves collusion between the patient and the
therapist to demonize some third party rather than look honestly at
the patient's own problems. Due to an ideological bias on the part of
the therapist (such as anti-cultism), the therapist insists on
treating the "presenting problem" rather than the underlying malady.
Suppose a person was expelled from a spiritual community for serious
misconduct. Instead of helping him overcome weaknesses in character,
an anti-cult therapist may try and make him feel like a big man by
encouraging him to go on the Internet and "rescue" other "cult
victims," bringing them to the exit counselor for "treatment." Such
"therapy" replaces insight with commercialism. The therapist benefits
economically by turning the patient into a walking sandwich board: "I
was abused by the cult, but now for a limited time I can get you a
discount rate on an exit counselor who takes all major credit cards
and really doesn't kidnap people anymore. Be sure and tell them Sam
sent you, so I get my commission." From where to where!
Abhinabha, you wrote:
> I fully support your inner conviction that we should fight
> for our rights, to paraphrase Bob Marley, and not let the
> "spitwad throwers" feel they have carte blanche in
> harassing a bona fide spiritual teacher. Like Sri Krishna
> said in the Bhagavad Gita, it is man's dharma or duty to
> do good and to fight against evil.
Please pardon me if I said anything militant. I don't want to impose
my personal issues on others. Teachings can guide us, but ultimately
each person has to know what the Supreme wants from them. Perhaps the
Supreme wants one person to simply aspire for the Highest, and stay a
million miles away from spitwad throwers. Another person may be of a
lower spiritual standard, so it is right for them to take a more
active role in society, using peaceful means to help end injustice.
Where people do speak out in defense of a teacher whom they love and
trust, surely they do so not as a reflex action, but because it's
something they believe in deeply, as one can observe in these comments
from Tanima, Nemi, and Nandita:
But as Palyati pointed out in message #15806, it can be good to accept
the world situation with detachment, and let the Supreme do the heavy
lifting. If someone finds the barking of the dogs disturbing, there is
no need to listen. The traditonal Hindu view is that one should take
in only pure things, avoiding corrupt influences. The Buddhist view is
similar. As Gedun Drub, the first Dalai Lama, wrote in the 15th century:
"They wander in space of darkest ignorance
Sorely tormenting those who strive for Truth,
Of lethal danger to Liberation, the Fell
Demons of Doubt please save us from this fear!"
Abhinabha, you also quoted Sri Chinmoy as follows:
> "In our Indian scriptures, it is written that if you hear
> somebody speaking ill of your Master and you do not rise
> to his defence, then you are committing the greatest sin.
>
> God alone knows which one is the right attitude. In my own
> case, I have told my disciples (...) only [to] pray to the
> Supreme to illumine that person. Let each human being take
> his own time to realise the Truth."
This highlights differences between India and the West. Here in the
West, much of society is secular rationalist or else Judeo-Christian.
Inevitably, out of ignorance some people will make rude comments about
an Eastern guru. They may not even be bad people - they may simply
have inherited foolish stereotypes. One need not respond to every
"cracker." But where there is a pattern of organized harassment
including violations of law, and where people in positions of
responsibility act shabbily, it may be necessary to use lawful due
process to end the harassment. Spiritual people mostly turn the other
cheek; but sometimes they have no choice but to send a strong signal
that illegal and harassing conduct will not be tolerated. This is
different than responding in kind. It is an ethical response which
calls attention to the wrong action, and uses peaceful means in a
measured way.
Of course, it may often be best to keep silent and not go to places
where one will be accosted by coarse, crude people. Sri Chinmoy's
writings are so vast, and cover so many different aspects of life,
that one can find passages justifying different solutions to the same
problem. Here he retells a traditional story about the Buddha:
The Buddha's Silence Wins
One day the Buddha was meditating. An elderly man came in and started
abusing the Buddha most ruthlessly. The Buddha remained absolutely silent.
How long could he continue his abuse? After a while he stopped and was
about to leave the place. But the Buddha said, "Just wait, please. I
have something to ask you. Tell me, when you offer gifts to a person,
if he does not accept your gifts, what do you do?"
"I just take them back."
The Buddha said, "Well, you have been trying to offer me the gifts
that you brought with you. Since I have not accepted your gifts, you
are taking them back with you."
The man felt sad and ashamed of his conduct. He begged forgiveness of
the Buddha. The Buddha forgave him, and eventually he became a close
disciple of the Buddha.
This reminds me of a somewhat frightening incident from a few years
ago. I happened to be in Manhattan, in the Wall St. area. I was
thinking of buying something from a store, but then I thought maybe I
should just save my money. I had been walking around for a few hours
and was feeling tired and confused. "I know," I thought to myself.
"What I really need is a short meditation to center myself." But there
was no good place to meditate. I did not see any church or park, and
was too tired to conduct an extensive search. So I simply chose a side
street which was not so heavily trafficked. It was broad daylight and
I sat down with my back against a lamppost. I was having a very
peaceful meditation with my eyes closed, when suddenly I heard someone
screaming curses in my left ear! A gang of youths had gathered, and
began taunting me with all kinds of filthy language. I did not open my
eyes, and remained impassive. One of them said: "Maybe if we [urinate]
on him we can get him to react." I was not cheered by this suggestion,
but I invoked peace and protection, and did not open my eyes. Of these
youths, one was of a higher standard than the others. He said: "No,
you can't get him to react when he's in that state." They were not
getting any satisfaction from taunting me, so they quickly moved on.
If I had opened my eyes and responded to them, perhaps they would have
beaten me. So here the Buddha's philosophy was vindicated! (Well, they
didn't beg forgiveness or become my disciples, but you get the
idea...) If nothing else, this story proves that on rare occasions I
can keep my mouth shut. ;-)
First a quick thank you to Niriha for those translations of rainbow
(ramdhanu) songs. It was really kind and thoughtful of you! I'll try
and say more in a future posting.
Doris, you raised the issue of how someone who's accepted a spiritual
master of Sri Chinmoy's calibre can see bad in him. I don't find this
hard to believe, because I'm a moody person. No matter how much I like
someone or something, if I'm in a bad mood I may feel critical of
everyone and everything. Those who are good will seem bad to me. This
is human nature, though perhaps I am worse than others. Sri Chinmoy
writes:
"Hate is often an obverse form of love. You hate someone whom you
really wish to love but whom you cannot love. Perhaps he himself
prevents you. Hate is a disguised form of love. You can only hate
someone that you have the capacity to love because if you are really
indifferent, you cannot even get up enough energy to hate him. Hatred
is the frustration or blockage of normal, free-flowing love."
[unofficial version]
Mate Szekely, if you threw me in the water I would sink like a stone,
so I must bow to you who have swum the English Channel. My
achievements are more modest: the occasional well put together
collection of words. I see what you mean about...
> ...behaviour very similar to the street beggars attitude.
> By trying to understand homeless people's attitude to
> life, I foud a striking similarity.
>
> Very often they got to a point in life, when they found it
> easier not to solve any problem any more, rather lie down
> on the street, criticise everyone and everything, or only
> one person, or one group, or the government, or God, or
> whoever they feel is responsible for [their] misfortune
> instead of realizing how close to themselves the source of
> their misfortune lies.
I myself have encountered that very hoity-toity kind of bum who feels
his new solution of lying in the gutter is so far superior to the days
when he bathed, shaved, and tried to make some positive contribution.
He is eager to persuade others to likewise sip the swill. ;-)
Some people become very bitter. They leave the spiritual path and say:
"All those years I spent praying and meditating I was just being a
fake. Everything is fake: fake guru, fake path, fake seekers..." This
is a kind of deep spiritual sickness that sometimes afflicts people.
It is the typical apostate mentality which tries to draw every circle
counterclockwise.
But even strangers who do not care to follow Sri Chinmoy's path, when
they just come to visit or if they meet Sri Chinmoy casually at a
function, they come away with a very good feeling - a special kind of
joy that they have never felt before. It is tangible even to casual
visitors. When they meet students of Sri Chinmoy, they see there is
such light shining from their faces!
Each spiritual master, no matter how polite, sweet, kind and
compassionate, has the task of helping the seeker dissolve the ego
shell that creates a sense of separativity from God. In the Gospel of
St. Thomas, the Christ says: "If you bring forth what is within you,
what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is
within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
When seekers work slowly and steadily to dissolve the hard, brittle
ego shell through love for God and constant self-giving, they grow in
Light and Delight. But sometimes an unbalanced person may suffer a
paranoid reaction, perhaps because they are holding onto the ego shell
very tightly, and they have lost the feeling of inner sweetness.
In terms of the inner connection, Sri Chinmoy is like a close personal
friend or family member to those of his students who have accepted him
wholeheartedly. So if they go through a period where their nature is
rebelling, he may be subjected to the worst in them, as a close friend
or family member might be.
Some teachers are like philosophers: they present the teachings but
leave it absolutely up to the student to apply them. Other teachers
care enough, dare enough, and also have the inner capacity to
personally help the student in his or her struggles. This kind of
teacher is fully involved, and takes a personal interest in the
student's well-being and progress. So if the student's nature rebels
against the spiritual life, the student may also rebel in a very
personal way against the teacher.
Perhaps Western seekers are more carried away by their emotions of the
moment, and do not see the connection with a teacher as something
sacred and enduring, something to be respected even in times when
one's own mood is not good or one's nature is rebelling.
If someone is constantly creating problems for themselves and others,
Sri Chinmoy may ask them to leave the Centre. One can have spiritual
love for someone, and yet also set boundaries about what type of
conduct is acceptable. Each person is responsible for maintaining a
certain standard, for maintaining their inner balance. It is a
question of using one's inner freedom wisely.
In a Time magazine article from May 8, 1995, Lawrence Mondi quotes
Christine Gorman:
"By all accounts, the descent into delusion is gradual. Everyone has
experienced slights, insults or failures at one time or another, and
most people find some way to cope. Or, if they don't, a trusted friend
or family member may persuade them to forget the past and get on with
their lives. But if they cannot shake off the sense of humiliation,
they may instead nourish their grudges and start a mental list of all
the injustices in their lives. Rather than take a critical look at
themselves, they blame their troubles on 'the company,' for example,
or 'the government' or 'the system.' ... Often these aggrieved people
fall in with others sharing the same point of view. The group helps
them to rehearse their grievances, ensuring that the wounds remain
open, and exposes them to similar complaints. As a result, paranoia
blossoms and spreads."
So Mate, this adds to your point about people who get caught up in the
blame game, or who are looking for someone to feed the monkey on their
backs. Back in worldly life, if they get the wrong kind of therapist,
one who is not so much a compassionate healer as an anti-cult
activist, then they go through a slow mentoring process which ends up
invalidating such a big chunk of their lives! They may have asked for
simple help in adjusting to secular society, but what they get is an
indoctrination into ultra-rationalist and ultra-individualist beliefs.
This completely negates the spiritual experiences that formed a big
part of their lives for 20 or 30 years.
I have seen this happen to people over time. It's as if a window in
their lives - a window through which they could once see sunlight -
has gradually been closed. They are repeatedly told (in effect) that
there is no sunlight to be seen - it was only an illusion. "Normal"
people don't have spiritual experiences; "normal" people don't go in
for anything more than church on Sunday or temple on Friday; "normal"
people put money, career and self-interest first. This kind of therapy
turns spiritual seekers into second-rate conformists!
It seems a rather sick reflection of our times when people who feel
love for God and a sense of community involvement are treated as if
such natural feelings are symptoms of a "cult illness." Some people go
from a life where there is constant spiritual opportunity to a life
where refilling their prescription for anti-depressants and persuading
others to hire exit counselors becomes their chief preoccupation.
Most therapists are compassionate healers; but some anti-cult
therapists will manipulate a person whose need to adjust to life
outside a spiritual community leaves them feeling vulnerable. The
therapist uses that vulnerability to indoctrinate them into a negative
community - an ex-cult "support group" where the subtext of all
discussion is how bad "cults" are. That is the therapist's personal
agenda - it was not originally the patient's.
Of course, people have a right to choose any therapy or philosophy
they want. But there is a line which some people cross where they
become actively involved in harassing their former friends and
teacher. Involvement in a hate group causes them to lose sight of the
basic tenets of honesty and decency. As Viddyut implies, on their own
these people might have naturally discovered "a 'middle path' for
themselves" which would allow them to proceed with a positive outlook.
But when they get sidetracked by anti-cult groups into hate
activities, and lend their name to harassment and vilification, they
get locked into a negative cycle like that mentioned in the Time
magazine article.
Such a person develops the mental habit of hating and blaming. They
simply don't see how foolish and counterproductive this is. They can
always find an excuse to continue the blame game. As I discussed in
message #9572, it is a type of stalking behavior. They are trying to
hold onto people who were once close to them, but in a troubled and
destructive way. They rationalize their behavior by demonizing the
victims (who are perfectly good people). They claim to be on some kind
of mission to rid society of "cults" or some such nonsense; but it is
just sick, mean-spirited (and often illegal) behavior. Some of these
people use ten or more different aliases to mask their activities, but
they have such a distinctive symptomology that it's easy to identify
them by their fixations.
To continue to hate and blame, to maintain some twisted connection
with the person hated and blamed, and to self-generate a hateful image
of the victim - this is all part of the same cycle of obsession. As
people stuck in this cycle continue to breath each other's fumes in
the closed environs of an anti-cult group, they egg each other on to
ever more illegal acts, sacrificing jobs and careers in the process.
But as Viddyut agreed, "The great thing about banging your head
against a stone wall is that it feels so good when you stop!"
One can describe two very different approaches taken by therapists to
treat people's suffering. One approach tells the patient she is a
victim, she must struggle to remember all the ways in which she has
been abused, she must name and a confront an abuser, and only then
will she have the "courage to heal." Another approach says: "How can
we make your life better today? How can we help you set goals and move
forward in your life? How can we get you functioning and help you take
responsibility for your life?"
Good therapy helps people move on in their lives to whatever new
positive choices await them. But bad therapy keeps them frozen in the
past, lost in a cycle of blame, forever trying to mete out public
opprobrium to some imagined wrongdoer. As discussed in message #4998,
bad therapy often involves collusion between the patient and the
therapist to demonize some third party rather than look honestly at
the patient's own problems. Due to an ideological bias on the part of
the therapist (such as anti-cultism), the therapist insists on
treating the "presenting problem" rather than the underlying malady.
Suppose a person was expelled from a spiritual community for serious
misconduct. Instead of helping him overcome weaknesses in character,
an anti-cult therapist may try and make him feel like a big man by
encouraging him to go on the Internet and "rescue" other "cult
victims," bringing them to the exit counselor for "treatment." Such
"therapy" replaces insight with commercialism. The therapist benefits
economically by turning the patient into a walking sandwich board: "I
was abused by the cult, but now for a limited time I can get you a
discount rate on an exit counselor who takes all major credit cards
and really doesn't kidnap people anymore. Be sure and tell them Sam
sent you, so I get my commission." From where to where!
Abhinabha, you wrote:
> I fully support your inner conviction that we should fight
> for our rights, to paraphrase Bob Marley, and not let the
> "spitwad throwers" feel they have carte blanche in
> harassing a bona fide spiritual teacher. Like Sri Krishna
> said in the Bhagavad Gita, it is man's dharma or duty to
> do good and to fight against evil.
Please pardon me if I said anything militant. I don't want to impose
my personal issues on others. Teachings can guide us, but ultimately
each person has to know what the Supreme wants from them. Perhaps the
Supreme wants one person to simply aspire for the Highest, and stay a
million miles away from spitwad throwers. Another person may be of a
lower spiritual standard, so it is right for them to take a more
active role in society, using peaceful means to help end injustice.
Where people do speak out in defense of a teacher whom they love and
trust, surely they do so not as a reflex action, but because it's
something they believe in deeply, as one can observe in these comments
from Tanima, Nemi, and Nandita:
http://tinyurl.com/2z72h/3320 - Tanima
http://tinyurl.com/2z72h/3321 - Nemi
http://tinyurl.com/2z72h/3152 - Nandita
But as Palyati pointed out in message #15806, it can be good to accept
the world situation with detachment, and let the Supreme do the heavy
lifting. If someone finds the barking of the dogs disturbing, there is
no need to listen. The traditonal Hindu view is that one should take
in only pure things, avoiding corrupt influences. The Buddhist view is
similar. As Gedun Drub, the first Dalai Lama, wrote in the 15th century:
"They wander in space of darkest ignorance
Sorely tormenting those who strive for Truth,
Of lethal danger to Liberation, the Fell
Demons of Doubt please save us from this fear!"
Abhinabha, you also quoted Sri Chinmoy as follows:
> "In our Indian scriptures, it is written that if you hear
> somebody speaking ill of your Master and you do not rise
> to his defence, then you are committing the greatest sin.
>
> God alone knows which one is the right attitude. In my own
> case, I have told my disciples (...) only [to] pray to the
> Supreme to illumine that person. Let each human being take
> his own time to realise the Truth."
This highlights differences between India and the West. Here in the
West, much of society is secular rationalist or else Judeo-Christian.
Inevitably, out of ignorance some people will make rude comments about
an Eastern guru. They may not even be bad people - they may simply
have inherited foolish stereotypes. One need not respond to every
"cracker." But where there is a pattern of organized harassment
including violations of law, and where people in positions of
responsibility act shabbily, it may be necessary to use lawful due
process to end the harassment. Spiritual people mostly turn the other
cheek; but sometimes they have no choice but to send a strong signal
that illegal and harassing conduct will not be tolerated. This is
different than responding in kind. It is an ethical response which
calls attention to the wrong action, and uses peaceful means in a
measured way.
Of course, it may often be best to keep silent and not go to places
where one will be accosted by coarse, crude people. Sri Chinmoy's
writings are so vast, and cover so many different aspects of life,
that one can find passages justifying different solutions to the same
problem. Here he retells a traditional story about the Buddha:
The Buddha's Silence Wins
One day the Buddha was meditating. An elderly man came in and started
abusing the Buddha most ruthlessly. The Buddha remained absolutely silent.
How long could he continue his abuse? After a while he stopped and was
about to leave the place. But the Buddha said, "Just wait, please. I
have something to ask you. Tell me, when you offer gifts to a person,
if he does not accept your gifts, what do you do?"
"I just take them back."
The Buddha said, "Well, you have been trying to offer me the gifts
that you brought with you. Since I have not accepted your gifts, you
are taking them back with you."
The man felt sad and ashamed of his conduct. He begged forgiveness of
the Buddha. The Buddha forgave him, and eventually he became a close
disciple of the Buddha.
- Sri Chinmoy, from Whatever You Want, God Gives
http://www.srichinmoylibrary.com/god-gives/6.html
This reminds me of a somewhat frightening incident from a few years
ago. I happened to be in Manhattan, in the Wall St. area. I was
thinking of buying something from a store, but then I thought maybe I
should just save my money. I had been walking around for a few hours
and was feeling tired and confused. "I know," I thought to myself.
"What I really need is a short meditation to center myself." But there
was no good place to meditate. I did not see any church or park, and
was too tired to conduct an extensive search. So I simply chose a side
street which was not so heavily trafficked. It was broad daylight and
I sat down with my back against a lamppost. I was having a very
peaceful meditation with my eyes closed, when suddenly I heard someone
screaming curses in my left ear! A gang of youths had gathered, and
began taunting me with all kinds of filthy language. I did not open my
eyes, and remained impassive. One of them said: "Maybe if we [urinate]
on him we can get him to react." I was not cheered by this suggestion,
but I invoked peace and protection, and did not open my eyes. Of these
youths, one was of a higher standard than the others. He said: "No,
you can't get him to react when he's in that state." They were not
getting any satisfaction from taunting me, so they quickly moved on.
If I had opened my eyes and responded to them, perhaps they would have
beaten me. So here the Buddha's philosophy was vindicated! (Well, they
didn't beg forgiveness or become my disciples, but you get the
idea...) If nothing else, this story proves that on rare occasions I
can keep my mouth shut. ;-)
A.M.