I think you are doing a great job by tarnishing a Great Leader like Sri Sri. You have missed all the great work done by him in India and abroad and have only pointed out incomplete facts. You are doing a great Sin. I request you to please rectify. Allah does not like ill-words against anyone, even if he is a non-muslim. The effects permeates this life as well as after-life. Please do not tarnish the name of Muslims by painting them as against non-muslims. Our prophet was the most merciful and tolerent with each and every living things, why not follow the good. Why
are you investigation on negetives. You are a good writer, write for the betterment of society. Just for your information. All these masters objective is/was to bring peace and joy, and they have achieved it. Money, Car, etc are all the resultants. They are all gifts given by god for their organisation. Tell me one area where they have actually used the money and gift they received.
Look deeper and you will see the greatness of these people. Controversies and rumours are all made by those against them. They are not the facts. Please dont be one of them. Articles like these are not news, they are instruments of hatred and misunderstanding.
My reply:
"You have missed all the great work done by him in India and abroad"
I don't think i have missed it. I just don't see the greatness of AOL's work (like i say in the article: the only thing i could figure out that is being done is giving Sudarshan Kriya courses) or SSRS' personal work (for i only see him talk in very shallow ways about difficult subjects - and making mistakes in doing so, like misrepresenting the Gandhian way of handling conflict or writing books about Islam "in a hurry")
"You have only pointed out incomplete facts."
Please show me where my facts are incomplete. I believe i have enough backup for my factual claims. And when I make more personal statements, i believe i made it clear that i did so, and thus can not be 'incomplete'. They are my personal views.
"You are doing a great Sin."
"I request you to please rectify."
"Allah does not like ill-words against anyone, even if he is a non-muslim."
"Please do not tarnish the name of Muslims by painting them as against non-muslims."
"Why are you investigation on negetives. You are a good writer, write for the betterment of society."
"Just for your information. All these masters objective is/was to bring peace and joy, and they have achieved it. Money, Car, etc are all the resultants. They are all gifts given by god for their organisation.
"Look deeper and you will see the greatness of these people. Controversies and rumours are all made by those against them. They are not the facts."
Also, as I said, so far nobody from AOL has been able to come up with a good counter-argument or counter-fact to the points I made in my articles. I'm constantly being told that i should know that my view is limited, that i am doing something awful, that SSRS is an amazing person and that i am wrong in 'tarnishing' him, etc.
But never is there anything factually showing me that i am wrong when i say that the way AOL presents Sudarshan Kriya, has nothing to do with the supposed scientific research, that i am wrong in doubting the amount of social projects they really have, that i am wrong in finding it strange that he was so silent about Maharishi being his teacher (until after Maharishi died), that i am wrong that it is very difficult to see what other social relieve AOL offers except Sudarshan Kriya courses, that i am wrong that the financial dealings of this multi-million business which is AOL asks for some clarity simply by the fact that they pretend it is for charity but some facts seem to show it is not. Etc. And as long as nobody shows me with arguments or solid proof how i am mistaking, or as long as nobody clearly answers the questions i raise in favour of AOL and SSRS, i will not change or remove my article.
Even more so, so far only the opposite has happened. The clear answers (I mean answers that don't go around the problems i put forward with some little relevant (spiritual) discussion) from those who can know only come from people that support my arguments. See here for example: http://guruphiliac.blogspot
"Articles like these are not news, they are instruments of hatred and misunderstanding."
Reply of J and my replies to his:
"I just don't see the greatness of AOL's work (like i say in the article: the only thing i could figure out that is being done is giving Sudarshan Kriya courses)"
Adopting thousands of villages in the country which are below poverty line - Is it not greatness?. It is an NGO with maximum number of village adoption in the whole world. The adoption include following activities - Teaching and promoting Organic farming, Irrigation techniques, Water harvesting development programs, Cleanliness, Drainage system development, Wells etc. They have built up villages on strong values, so farmers and poor sustain hard times.
One: My article first of all says that these things were not truly mentioned in the promotional videos on the official websites. Even more, when those things are mentioned in some parts of the texts on the website, nowhere is explained how exactly those things are done. And that makes me question it, for i'm fully aware of the fact that each and every single element of those things needs quite some expertise to handle them correctly. So I of course wonder where all the expertise comes from or which models are adopted to put these things into practice. But AOL does not seem to feel the need to show which models they apply or where their expertise comes from.
Two: Even if i suppose that you are in fact doing all those things (because you can't explain everything on a website of course), then, as my article says, the numbers seem highly exagerated and again make it questionable that those things are indeed done (and certainly on the scale that is proposed).
I have myself been involved with another NGO called Village Reconstruction Organisation (http://www.vro-int.org) that has done exactly the things that you mention. They have build over 500 villages in India in about 30 years. I have seen quite a lot of them and even helped somebody making a documentary about those villages and there development-programs. I was fully aware how difficult it was to make it all work, and i even would say that the amount (500 in 30 years) was absolutely unmanageable to do it all properly. It needed a lot more time. Not because of a lack of effort (the organiser worked continuously and there were many volunteers helping) but simply because the villagers have to be educated and trained in all these things and that takes a lot of time, effort and care to do it properly. So even if a development organisation has twenty enlightened people working for it, it is simply impossible to overstretch the limits of the people you work for. In other words, even if SSRS is enlightened, the villagers aren't.
So, as i know from personal experience how difficult it is to set up decent and sustainable projects in rural areas in India, ans since i know that 500 villages in 30 years is already too much to handle properly, i heavily question the numbers AOL offers (and you as well mention "thousands").
According to SSRS' personal website "In 1997, he founded the International Association for Human Values, a humanitarian Non-Governmental Organization that advances human values in political, economic, industrial, and social spheres. The Association is working in poor rural communities to promote sustainable growth, and has reached more than 30,000 villages." This means that in 11 years (or 4015 days) the association for Human Values has "reached out" to an average of more than 7 villages a day!
Now i don't know what "reach out" is supposed to mean but they make it seem like it means that they genuinely and seriously did the things you say: "Teaching and promoting Organic farming, Irrigation techniques, Water harvesting development programs, Cleanliness, Drainage system development, Wells etc". It is simply impossible to those things at such a tempo. Even if we suppose that SSRS is truly enlightened and capable of doing or organising such a thing (though i doubt it, because he travels and gives lectures half of the time), then, as i said, the villagers themselves don't let themselves be 'educated' or 'developed' on a day. So either AOL reaches out extremely superficially and simply mentioning the name of SSRS is considered to be "reaching out" and doing "development work", or the numbers given are totally impossible.
If you know, thousands of villagers commit suicide every year due to lack of opportunities and access to basics. The projects cost hundreds of million dollars every year. Huge portion of funding for all these projects come from Course fees collected at metro, urban and sub-urban areas.
Well, in any case not from the course fees of the American branch of AOL. Which is strange, as Americans still offer the bigger capital-possibility for such robin-hood-like ideas. But according to the 2005 tax return filed by the American chapter, AOLF had total revenues of $3.2 M (mainly from course fees and public support) and expenditure of $1.9M (mainly in salaries, occupancy expenses and travel) in 2004; however none of the money went towards international developmental or humanitarian programs, disaster relief, scientific/medical research or charitable activity. According to the document, the organizations sole accomplishment for the year was to "teach art of living courses". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Living) you can find that tax paper here: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/770/240/2005-770240101-025eb863-9.pdf .
All courses held in villages and outskirts of big Cities are free of cost. You may visit many websites for info, however the real picture can not be seen through websites.
And why would that be? They try to show how 'for the poor' they are in every other instance?
Apart from this the organization has set up many schools and colleges in rural areas. All funded by organization through course fees and donations.
The teachers of AOL are paid bare minimum salary to survive. Their daily necessities are also taken care during courses. Just for your knowledge, the teachers visit many far off places for conducting courses. During thier visits they live and in local houses belonging to volunteers, so that maximum amount is collected for such social cause.
Some ex-AOL teachers (who have first hand knowledge) claim quite something different. See for example here: http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2008/03/defection-aol-teacher-sees-light.html
Perhaps specifically read those parts of the ex-AOL teacher where he questions
* Why the focus on organization growth and perpetuation rather than the advancement of the people involved and deeper self-inquiry?
* Why the lack of transparency and accountability for the use of funds, projects implemented, etc.?
* Why the organization's acting increasingly like a business in the guise of a non-profit?
* Why the conflict between encouraging people to donate a dollar a day to support poor children, etc. and staying in the presidential suites at expensive hotels (e.g. Ritz-Carlton), flying first class, etc.?
The organization has conducted courses free of cost in war torn countries and brought peace and calmness.
There is still a lot to write.
"writing books about Islam "in a hurry"
The book was written to bring out similarities between religions. However, when it was learnt that the book is creating misunderstanding (though not intended), it was immediately withdrawn. The printing and distribution was immediately stopped. Sri Sri as and when confronted about the content of book, clarified his intention behind the book and said that such information should not be circulated if the purpose is not solved. What else can be done. Now what more is expected?
A bit later you tell me that "Freedom of speech also comes with great responsibility. Responsibility towards society.(...) We in India have experienced communal hatred, we have experienced communal love also." Did somebody say this to SSRS in this way? Taking it back is fine, and i'm happy he did, but if he was so enlightened he could have foreseen what the reactions were going to be. Certainly when writing it "in a hurry". And he himself said he wrote it in a hurry. Literally. What i expect of a religious leader in a country that indeed has known a lot of communal violence is not simply to withdraw books that offend people but above all to first and for all NOT write them in a hurry, but to think, research and redact a lot before you publish such books.
"Please show me where my facts are incomplete. I believe i have enough backup for my factual claims"
This is the problem with journalism, which very few highly skilled journalists have overcome. Journalism have only brought out facts, they have never been able to bring out intention. I do not blame them, it is just the pressure in profession. Can you do me a favor, please keep aside all your assumptions and beliefs about the Sri Sri and organization for sometime, then look at the facts along with intention, then see the difference. My dear Jonas there are no words to describe real intentions and feelings.
My question remains: show me where i assume things (that i claim to be facts) or show me where my facts are not true (when i state them as facts). Simply calling my factual references 'assumptions' will not do. If i say the results of the scientific research do not support what AOL claims about Sudarshan Kriya (like "higher energy levels") than this is a fact, not an assumption. Everybody can see it for him/herself.
Considering the 'intention'. Mine have been very clear (i stated them very clearly here: http://www.yunusnews.com/node/506 ) and the intention of SSRS and AOL i so far still consider to be more economic than spiritual. That is at least what the facts made believe (one fact again for example being that they misuse the results of scientific research in order to sell their meditation as some kind of product)
"Since when is putting in to question and having a different opinion a great Sin?"
Putting Opinion and different views are no Sin only when the opinion brings out consequences good for humanity. Our prophet also always believed in the betterment of humanity.
Based on the facts i have come to the conclusion that there is not much truth in the claims of AOL. It is my assumption that it is better for humanity to know this. So appearently we both think we're trying to get better consequences. I do so by writing what i wrote (because i think it's the truth) and you by trying to make me realise that i shouldn't write such things (because you think it's not true). That is exactly what freedom of speech is about. So i really don't think either of us is committing a sin, we are merely having a discussion.
"Neither does Allah like people to pretend that they are spiritual while the main drive is financial gain"
The result of Sudarshan kriya is peace and calmness in mind and body. It removes stresses in mind and body that get accumulated over time. After removal of Stresses and strains come peace and calmness, this is what is called spiritual. The result of performing Sudarshan Kriya is Spiritual. It is for spiritual gain and not for financial gains. Financial gain is for a different purpose as explained above."
(cf. the patenting of Sudarshan Kriya)"
The patenting of Sudarshan Kriya is required from purely world economics point of view. Today the western country patents every new thing and does not allow others to use it, or allow it at cost. There have been thousands of instances of such kind. The craze of western world of making changes here and there and patenting them as their own invention, prompted AOL to patent Sudarshan Kriya.
I know, that is why i have stated it in my reply to the office of AOL: "the reason for the pattenting one finds in the interview on http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jan/14inter.htm is 'Because someone else was going to patent it. We patented it so we could teach. Otherwise, it would have become a commercial commodity in the US long ago. People started copying it and we stepped in.'"
But what i meant with the example of Sudarshan Kriya is that it seems very 'unspiritual' and 'unenlightened' to patent any type of meditation. I wasn't talking about SK in itself being something commercial under the disguise of something spiritual, i'm talking about the AOL at large and SSRS himself pretending to be spiritual but apparently being very involved with the "purely world economics points of view" as you say it.
Also the reason why AOL wanted it not to be used by other organizations is due to the power of sudarshan kriya. Only specially trained teachers are allowed to carry audio copy of Sudarshan Kriya. It is not available anyways. A smaller and shorter version has been advised by all to be practiced, and not the patented one.
So there are two versions of the same meditation?A patented one and a not patented one. Does that mean something like "a good one for free and an even better one if you pay?" The shareware version and the subscribed version? Really, if the idea is to bring enlightenment and relieve to as many people as you can than splitting up your meditation into two types - one for the 'normal' people and one 'really good one' for those that are more involved with your organisation - it seems only countereffective.
All in all, let's be happy that Christ didn't copywright the "Our Father" and that Muhammad didn't patent the Muslim prayer.
"Allah like people who misrepresent or lie about things (cf. the whole claim of the "scientificness" of their claims about Sudarshan Kriya)."
Sudarshan kriya brings abrupt and strong energy in the body. It helps replace degenerated energy particles in body through energy in air.
With all do respect, but that is exactly the type of thing that has no evidence, proof or scientific backup whatsoever. I do not know where you get the facts for that. That is simply what AOL says about SK. That is in another words exactly what you blame me for spreading: assumptions that are not based on facts.
Just a small experiment. Close you eyes, take 20 deep and fast breaths, the 20 breaths should finish up in almost 10-15 seconds, keep your eyes closed and see what is happening in your body. This is power of Sudarshan Kriya.
I know how it works. Nothing new under the sun there. Very much like other already existing types of breathing (and i'm not the only one to say so, see here for example: http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2006/07/sri-sri-cons-iraqis.html )
Sudarshan kriya has helped people quickly recover from cancer and other such deceases. The simple reason being huge quantity of replacement of dying energy particles with new fresh ones.
Again, assumptions not based on any facts. And don't give me links to the scientific research that AOL offers. Read the summaries. Not one of them talks of something like "energy particles". Not one of them 'proves' that it helps to "quickly recover from cancer".
Scientific explanation given to us about benefits of Sudarshan Kriya is basically not required; it is just an add-on information available to us. The scientific information should not hold much value, just concentrate on the benefits of Sudarshan Kriya.
And if this is how AOL thinks about scientific information, why then are they so keen in offering it?
On top of it, i wouldn't use the argument of "concentrate on the benefits" for i can find enough first hand experience stories that talk of possible negative effects. Here for example http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2006/07/sri-sri-cons-iraqis.html
To quote but one from that webpage: "My experience was that I became weaker and sicker with practice, as did many others I know who left the organization. These were people who practiced for some time. One original organizer died at in his 40s of cancer. Another died at the Montreal ashram in his 40s of a heart attack, having been previously very healthy and fit and unstressed in general. I could go on and on, but you see for yourself."
More info on Scientific aspects can be found on the net. I recommend reading Practices of Hath Yoga to lean more about benefits of kriya Yoga through breathing.
I am fully familiar with Hatha Yoga. It is exactly because i have quite some background in Meditation and Yoga or Yogalike practices that i criticize organisations like AOL and the way they handle SK
“I really do not see how i could possibly be tarnishing the name of Muslims. A lot of articles on Yunus news actually try to correct wrong images about Islam (for example showing how Islam is inherently a tolerant religion) and my article about SSRS had absolutely nothing to do with Muslims. So i do not see why you brought this up”
Clearing misconceptions about Islam is an excellent activity. However, my concern is on the other hand not to tarnish other religions believes.
I'm not tarnishing any other believes either. As a Gandhian i have an extremely great respect for Hinduism. I'm only criticizing SSRS and his AOL, not the spirituality (a mix of Hinduism & New Age) that they abuse to sell their products to as much people as they can.
Writing against others believes makes one feel about being against that religion. Are you really against them? You are on public domain; freedom of speech does not mean writing anything. Freedom of speech also comes with great responsibility. Responsibility towards society.
Agreed. And I believe it was my responsibility to question SSRS and AOL.
I already said so: we both think we're doing and saying the right things. So telling me that i should be more responsible is really not an argument at the moment.
"I am not 'investigating negatives'. The point of Yunus is to offer correct and balancing news about religious topics. This is in fact aimed at the betterment of society."
Writing against spiritual believes, how does it bring betterment of society?
Again, i do not write against spiritual believes, i write against productification and commercialisation of spirituality.
There are hundreds of non-muslims reading your article; do you think they will make better the lives of muslims living nearby? We in India have experienced communal hatred, we have experienced communal love also. There is no country in the world with such experiences. Spreading information with positive consequences is the best way of living life, dont you think?
I was after the truth, that is all. Of course i believe that offering a more truthful picture would have positive consequences. And considering that you didn't give a counter argument for any of the facts that i state (except calling them assumptions, but not showing why they would or could be wrong) i will still think so.
"Your believes are your believes, but does this mean that you also believe that Osho had 98 Rolls Royces because he was such a 'spiritual' man?"
I love this part. I lived in Pune for two years. It is a city where OSHO spent a big part of life and has a big Ashram. You come to the city and you will know the fact. Osho with his teachings of peace and calmness influenced many many millionaires from across the world to convert their lives from distress to stress-free, through renunciation, donations, service and meditation. These very rich people had donated all their wealth to the OSHO organization, including their vehicles. This wealth was so huge that it was spent in building more ashrams across the world for meditation and donations to nearby villages. The renunciations brought in rolls royce and merc and many more. 98 rolls are just part of it. However, Osho never rode them. What will he ride them for when his day and night was spent in conducting course?
First of all i have already visited Pune a couple of times. And so yes i've seen the Ashram, but except for lots of commercialised spirituality i haven't seen much else. The 'disneyland of the spiritual meaning seeker' i used to call it.
On top of it, at this point it becomes clear that there are some strange aspects to our present discussion. You blame me for too much assumptions and too little knowledge about the subject while the opposite is quite apparent.
Osho DID ride in his rolls royces, and quite a lot, and he bought them with all the money that his followers gifted to him (just like before that he would buy or be gifted a huge collection of rolex-watches that he wore and was happy to show on his wrists). His day and night was certainly not spend on conducting courses (he for example watched a lot of movies in his Oregon Ashram) and he is certainly not an example of stress-freeness, renunciation or meditation. At one point he had an addiction to laughing gass, his organisation was heavily fraudulent and even connected to murder, and so on. And all you had to do to know these things was read the book that was written by somebody that has for years been in his inner circle (and even his private bodyguard once): Hugh Milne's "Bhagwan, the God that failed".
My dear Jonas, I do not want to hurt you but incomplete knowledge is very controversial.
True, that is why i think it is time AOL was more transparent in its dealings (certainly its financial ones). As long as they don't they'll remain controversial.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten