Email from Sanjay Pareek

Sanjay Pareek send me the following email:

Dear Yunus,

Congratulations on achieving your objective of tarnishing the image of Sri Sri on the net. I am sure those who read such articles will get affected partly, specially the ones who do not know about the man and his great mission. In the process, you also get your share of fame by indulging in these antics. From the very beginning to the end, your objective is to tarnish his image. Even though that is all that you do, you do not even have the courage to admit it. To support your views, you plainly say that "critics" say this or that and no one knows who those critics are. I guess those "critics" are "you".
I was reminded of Swami Vivekanand for whom you have so much reverence. Once in a train, two Englishmen abused him a lot thinking he does not understand English. At the next station, they saw him speaking in fluent English to the station master. Flustered, they asked him that why did he not say a word when he knew that they were abusing him. His reply was: This is not the first time I have met fools."
I know you will not have courage to post this on your website. May God give you wisdom and peace of mind so that you do not have to resort to these antics in future.

This was my reply:

It is not because I have no courage that I will not post your reply, but because it has no journalistic nor argumentative value. [note: this refers to the possibility of publishing this on the Yunus News website. With this blog it eventually does get published.]

I already have posted the comments made by the Art of Living foundation bureau of communication. I guess it shows I am willing to take up different stances.

Considering "the critics" who have different stances than you, they are, I assure you, not limited to only "me". Although I do receive emails like yours as a response on the article, I also receive emails of people congratulating me, as they are glad that at least somebody put an article on the net that is in line with their view and experiences. (I do not publish these emails either -
for the same reasons as mentioned) [note: here again, it of course refers to the Yunus News website]

Also, apart from these emails, for example, with a quick look at http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/ you will see that there are quite some more people thinking thus. Of course guruphiliac is a bit made to ridicule certain guru's, but a quick search in google should turn up some more sites.

Also, if you would for example check the discussion page of Wikipedia, both on Sri Sri himself and on AOL, you will see that there are enough people trying to balance the image that is proposed by Sri Sri followers or AOL members themselves.

And "balance" is both what wikipedia and my article is about. I did not seek to tarnish the image. I do not, for example, say that he is "a fool" (like your analogy points out that I would be).

(By the way, why would my underlying motivation be to "tarnish" his image? I clearly state my intentions. Here they are again:"As a journalist I wanted to give another view on SSRS than is lately give a lot in the media like for example CNN because the information became to one-sided. As a philosopher/theologian I wanted to set some things straight like the weird way in which the existence of 'scientific research' is used as an argument, while the language to 'sell' the Sudarshan Kriya is very pseudo scientific. And as a spiritual person interested in peace and religion I also wanted to make sure that proper investigation is given to SSRS and AOL before they receive a
Nobel prize.")

I simply wanted to point out that the "official" image and the image given the organisation itself, which is taken over by some (important) media channels should be called into question because some serious doubts can be raised about it all.

I believe I put these doubts forward in an argumentative manner. The way to reply to my article would thus be with counterarguments (like AOL tried - that's why I published it).

But the problem is, both on Wikipedia and in the case of this article, that Sri Sri fans or AOL members often do not give arguments, but simply say that those who do not agree with the idea that 'Sri Sri is fantastic' are stupid and blind. So many times I have seen an answer like yours to an argument of a critical person. It comes down to "People who do not like Sri Sri should stop saying it because it wrongly tarnishes the image of a person who is so great and wonderful." As if it is a sin to doubt and criticize.

It is no counterargument to say: "You're wrong, Sri Sri is fantastic and you're stupid if you don't see it - so stop at once with saying these things."

I at least do not say to anybody: "stop practising Sudarshan Kriya." (I merely say that is not more special than other meditation practices. But, by the way, I certainly support meditation practices in general) and I also don't say: "You're a fool if you don't see what a fraud he is." No, I gave several arguments to then conclude: "perhaps he might be a fraud and not a new kind of Jesus".

But of course, you might be right and I might be wrong. Perhaps he is a new kind of Saviour of the world. So be it. And you will be right then. Thank you for trying to bring me to the right view, but because of a lack of solid arguments I will sadly enough not change my idea.

Thank you also for calling me a fool and a coward. I mean, thank you for pointing out that this is the kind of "non-violence" and "universal love" Sri Sri followers use in their communication. (Which is another reason not to change my idea)