Is high technology subsidized by taking money from the rich and foolish?
Let's consider the internet.
Almost all the libraries, databases, services and knowledge banks on the net are available for free. How come? Who is paying for all the bandwidth, hardware, data centers, programmers, content creators etc.?
Let's consider three cases: Google Inc., The New York Times and Wikipedia.
Google:
Google (like Yahoo and MSN) offers a bunch of services, including free email, discussion forums, social networking platforms, blogs, research tools, maps, and so on.
All free!
Google employes thousands of very highly paid engineers, and still manages to make a huge profit every year. How so? Its main revenue stream is from displaying targeted ads on millions of websites. As of now ads from Google are relatively low-bandwidth and unobtrusive whereas those from Yahoo and MSN's advertising arms are flashy and hard to ignore.
So the digerati surf on the net and see the ads. The ads are an art in themselves, employing various tactics to make the user click on them. Some of the users (probably 2-5%) click on the ads and some of them even buy the advertised product or service. So Google (as well as Yahoo or MSN) makes its money.
And it generously offers its free services to anyone who cares to sign up. All the free services also come with targeted ads. So fools keep clicking on ads and buy things or sign up for services and sites that they don't need, and freeloaders have a field day.
The New York Times:
Till recently, one needed a low-priced subscription in order to view the NY Times columnns and its archives. Now it is all free. How come?
Read Here.
Advertising comes to the rescue once again. Make your site free, and populate it with advertisements. The fools will click on the ads and make you your money, and hopefully they will be numerous enough to make you a huge windfall. The strategy seems to work for most online portals, so why not with NY Times?
Once again, the clever just read the content, and the clueless pay for them, not directly but indirectly with their time and energy (brand recognition, word of mouth and visibility are still worth something even if someone doesn't buy the advertised product but just notices the ad) and money. The geeks don't even see the ads (see the epilogue of this article).
Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is run with donations from foundations and individuals. An outstanding repository of information, it still is running without any advertisements or subscription fees. In fact, its quality of information is directly dependant on the number of participants in its community.
I have benefitted so much from Wikipedia that I have no qualms at all about donating to it. Since the Wikimedia foundation is non-profit, and it is serving such a eminently worthwhile group of websites, most people who are regular users will not mind paying a little bit to help it out. But the fact of the matter is, sites like wikipedia do not need much money to run. They need very little.
The software is written by free software volunteers from around the world, the hardware needed is not much and is easy to get from big retailers, the database can fit on a single hard disk. However, due to extremely heavy usage, wikipedia uses caching servers in Japan and in Europe.
Wikipedia is running on a comparatively old platform (LAMP), which does not require much computing resources.
Suppose a person was to start a small site, with easily available open source software (such as the OpenACS Platform). The site hosting with a dedicated server costs around $100 per month for 100s of gigabytes of traffic allowed and multiple gigabytes of databases. How come the hardware and bandwidth is so cheap?
Technology is getting cheaper due to the large scale of manufacturing, global competition between labor markets and constant advancements in technology and production process. But mostly, via research into new technologies which make the old technologies cheap and obsolete.
And who is paying for the research? Organizations like IBM, Microsoft, Canon, Intel, AMD, Cisco, Toshiba, and so on. Governments too, but usually university research takes a few years to reach a finished product. And how come the organizations can invest so much in research? Because they are making a killing introducing and selling new, overpriced products in the market (Vista, HDDVD, iPhone, quad-core CPUs, 12MP digital cameras, high-end laptops). The rich and greedy pay for the latest gadgets and research, and the poor and patient reap the benefits after a few years when prices fall drastically as the technology becomes commonplace.
The rich and impatient are paying for a constant stream of new technologies, products and gadgets. No matter how powerful one's computer is, there will always be an overpriced game, productivity app or a latest bloated operating system to take the wind out of its sails. People realize it only after spending tens of thousands of dollars chasing the gadgets.
And in this way, technology is being "subsidized" for the poor. Consider the following: A VCR used to cost Rs 22000 twenty years back in India. Today a DVD player costs Rs 2200. Adjusted for 5% annual inflation, a DVD player's cost in 1987 terms is close to Rs 800 only. So a much much better quality product costs 27 times cheaper over a period of 20 years. This is the effect of rapid technological change driven by the desire for better and more powerful gadgets, with the cost of change mostly paid for by the rich. An HD-DVD player costs around $800 today (Rs 32000), and it is indeed being bought at this price. After five years, the HD-DVD player cost will also be $50 and it will see mass adoption in the third world. And then we will probably see an even more fantastic media platform.
(I sometimes wonder what will happen once technology reaches its perceivable quality limit. I don't think a naked eye can see any difference between a 12MP digital picture or a 24MP one, even when enlarged to the size of a poster. I don't think even audiophiles can detect any difference between 384kbps and 512kbps VBR MP3. I don't think even discerning moviegoers can detect any visible difference between the image quality of an RSDL Dual Layer DVD and an HD-DVD. So maybe demand for new products will be generated by advertising alone, not by the promise of something objectively better (see the current crop of mobile phones, for example). Then both the advertising agencies like Google and marketers like Nokia will have ingenious new strategies for making money from fools, but the biggest winners will be the ignorant poor who will suddenly be able to afford a mobile phone for $10).
This kind of price reduction driven by planned obsoloscence is what makes technology so cheap and sites like wikipedia so inexpensive to run.
...
Epilogue:
If you don't want to ever see the vast majority of ads while surfing the net, and therefore increase the SNR (signal-noise ratio) of what you see on your computer, I heartily recommend the following software:
- Mozilla Firefox web browser
- Ad Block Plus (Firefox extension)
- Ad Block Plus filterset.G updater (Firefox extension)
- Flashblock (Firefox extension)
Not only will Mozilla Firefox with the above extensions make your internet experience better and more productive, it will also save you money in case your bandwidth is limited or if your bandwidth usage is metered (as is very common in a third world country like India).
In any case, most of the adverts on the web sites are not applicable for a country like India (they are for local products and services in the US/Europe etc.)
If you are even more adventurous, you can try CustomizeGoogle.
There is a lot of controversy about this approach.
See this Slashdot thread, for example.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Shawshank Redemption by Frank Darabont
Because this film is about hope, and we all hope for freedom from our bonds and sorrows, it is a universally appealing film, currently ranked #2 in the IMDB top 250.
It is a popular and mainstream film, with little being left unsaid. Based on a short story by Stephen King, the film presents the life in prison of an innocent man, a man who is extraordinarily determined to not become a victim of his circumstances.
The acting by Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins is utterly believable and their characters are so well fleshed out that we know them, feel with them, think what they are thinking, cry and laugh with them, and find an affirmation of life in their bond of friendship and understanding.
It is remarkable how a film about criminals sentenced for life can resonate so well with millions of people around the world.
Recommendation: Very Good
Spring Summer Fall Winter ... And Spring by Ki Duk Kim
A film from Korea. With stunning cinematography, this film explores the themes of ignorance, time, cause and effect, suffering and redemption.
The film hardly contains any dialogue and there are only a few events which happen during the entire film, but they are enough to convey the essential message. A familiarity with Buddhism will certainly help one in appreciating the film beetter. Ignorance is the basis of suffering in Buddhism. It is well nigh impossible to know the consequences of all our acts (ref. the so-called Butterfly Effect), but the chain of cause and effect is inexorable. As seasons come and go, as we get older and wiser, we regret some of the follies of our younger years, we regret the hurts we caused and the hearts we broke.
This film does require patience. It is not a parable as it encompasses almost an entire life of one man, and it is not too subtle at times, but it is meditative, giving enough pauses to reflect on the fate of the characters.
As someone on IMDB points out, all the principal characters in the film are nameless, as in Buddhism, individuality is considered an illusion, and names only a practical convenience for worldly affairs. Other than that, the absence of names also points to the universality of the theme.
Every film is a microcosmos. In a wide thematic film such as this, issues as diverse as parental authority, the youthful bubbling of sexual energy, the rebellion against established norms, the storm of possessiveness and jealousy, the question of suicide, the emergence and decay and end of life, the norms of the world and the norms of a monastery, industralization and pollution are softly touched but nothing is said about them.
The writer Hermann Hesse considered the phase of Samsara (worldly suffering) as an essential factor in one's spiritual salvation, as without it, the suffering and the desire to be free, remains theoretical and a mere curiosity.
This film, however, does not question some of the basic tenets of prevailing Buddhism and I think the director is deliberate in pandering to common notions of spirituality, karma and penance.
As to the technical aspects of the film, a few remarks:
The scene composition and cinematography, as I said, is superb. The music and dialogue is excellent. The acting is above average but not exemplary.
Recommendation: Very Good
Pather Panchali by Satyajit Ray
The first film by the famed Indian director is a landmark in world cinema. Inspired by the Neo-Realist movement in Italian cinema, Ray and Subroto Mitra (the cinematographer), both rank amateurs, succeeded beyond anybody's imagination in presenting a slice of life in a poor village in India with such tremendous sensitivity, beauty and poise that the film swept across the world, gathering award after award, accolade after accolade, and paving the way for a remarkable director to present his ouvre in his famed Apu Trilogy to the world.
Ray was foremost a humanist, and only secondly a filmmaker. It is not a surprise that the title of the award to the film at Cannes in 1956 was "Best Human Document".
Richly deserving of all the praise, the film is episodic in style. Understatedly dealing with life in its various forms and shades, man and nature in constant play with each other, the passage of time and the awareness of decay, death and loss of innocence, the film says nothing overtly, and yet says it all.
One always feels softer, more sensitive, a little kinder and more generous, more understanding after watching a Ray film, and that feeling is the signature of this great director.
Recommendation: Masterpiece
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev (continued)
As the second example, let us take the following question and its answer.
I will be annotating "Sadhguru's" reply since this is a long text and repeating it for annotating will make it too long. The question and Sadhguru's answer are in quotes and mine are prefixed by a "#" character.
"Q: If you would review your interview you may realize the overall 'feel good' nature of Sadhguru's responses. Appeal to one's logic and reason while diverting attention away from substantive issues. Thus Shiva becomes an embodiment of Universality, and not worshipped as part of the Hindu trinity. The Dhyanalinga (a representation of Shiva in the form of a phallus), the Sanskrit slokas, the bija mantras, invoking Sadhguru's presence by chanting the hymn to Lord Vasudevaya all these are non-religious!
Also note that Sadhguru glossed over the screening process. My conscience alone knows the dedication and fervor with which I pursued this path. I wish I had paid attention to what was happening around me I would have pulled out sooner. This response again is typical of a cult. The blame is always the individual and the person's lack of faith. My experience has shown that the process is geared towards enslaving a person's mind, and as such rises to the level of a cult. I give below some of the signs typical of a cult leader that I gleaned from the net:
1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
3. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
4. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently, analyze situations, independent of the group/leader's involvement.
5. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supersede any personal goals or individual interests.
6. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
7. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
8. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
The crux of the organization is the offer of 'liberation'. This liberation is exemplified by altered states of consciousness brought on by sleep deprivation, meditation, constant chanting, yelling, screaming etc., I am now suspect of any group that requires that one suspend one's logic. Since this 'knowledge' is 'beyond' logic.
In any scientific study the results are open to scrutiny. The results ought to be both reliable and repeatable. A pharmaceutical company cannot claim that the randomness in the efficacy of their drug is due to the doubting nature and short attention span of the patients. But this is precisely what these organizations get away with. Could the Sadhguru tell us how many else became enlightened through his process besides himself. Why then the claim that the 'inner possibility' is as open to Shyam as it was to the Buddha or Sadhguru himself. With regard to the altered states of consciousness itself: it is not limited to Yoga or Hinduism - we can find it in the sects of Christian Pentacosts, Islamic Sufism, Dervishes, Sri Sri Sri Ravishankar etc., To lay out a process that brings about these states and then use it to convince people that they have found THE way is both disingenuous and duplicitous.
Do not be a follower, but be a prophet unto thy own. During my days in Isha there was this Jewish doctor who was sought by Sadhguru as well as a competitor to serve in their ashram. Sadhguru preaches about his yoga hospital in the ashram where people are treated in holistic methods. This doctor who visited the ashram reported that she was shocked to find that there was no such hospital in existence. We collectively reasoned this away by convincing ourselves that it is his intention to bring the yogic hospital to fruition in the future. Alas such is the power of mindless delusion! - Name withheld on request
A:
"Spiritual science is about inner well being. To create the inner well being we use every possible method that life allows. Modern science has proved that the whole existence is just a reverberation of energy."
# Such simplistic reductions of modern theories of (e.g.) quantum mechanics and general relativity is quite common by modern day charlatans such as the venerable Deepak Chopra. The trend was probably begun by the physicist Fritjof Kapra when he published his opus "The Tao of Physics". To get further insight into these antics, do refer to an article about Quantum Quackery.
"Where there is a vibration there is bound to be a sound. "
# Firstly he reduces the universe to "reverberation of energy" which is then equated with "vibration". Then he reduces "vibration" to "sound". Sound is the perception (e.g., by a human being) of a pressure wave traveling through a matter medium. Sound waves are completely distinct from electromagnetic waves, which are completely different from quantum mechanical waveforms and probability clouds.
"So the whole existence is seen as yoga of complex amalgamation of sound. What you call the cosmos is a complex web of sound called nadabrahma. In it are some key sounds."
# Certifiable bullshit. There is no sound at all in the pervasive vacuum which exists in space.
"These key sounds when applied to the right door can open a whole dimension for you."
# Presumably, the new dimension is the so-called extra sensory realm.
"This is how a mantra works. You cannot look at everything also from a religious perspective. The reason you do that is because of the culture you were brought up on and the tools that were used to create that inner well being in you. May be some religions have staked a claim on these mantras or these tools but that doesn’t make it religious."
# The questioner is probably questioning whether the label "secular" can be applied to the chanting of Sanskrit mantras praising Hindu deities. The "Sadhguru" is responding that the mantras are generic and are not tied to any particular religion. In fact bija mantras (or the key sounds) are quite specific aspects of Hindu theology. They hardly find any mention in the religions and cults outside India and its neighboring countries.
"In India we light a lamp in the evening. It may look like a religious ritual - before sunset light a lamp before God, but when there was no electricity then lighting a lamp was basic common sense, isn’t it?"
# Lighting a lamp is not a religious ritual, dear "Sadhguru", lighting a lamp in front of a deity is! Never was "common sense" so evident.
"So there is an elaborate science of mantras behind the process of using sounds for inner well being."
# There may well be. Music and chanting do effect one's mind, make it calm or agitated (depending upon the music). Music or mantra therapy to treat physical or psychological disorders is a stream of new age healing, just like Pranic healing, Reiki, crystal and gemstone therapy, and other such claptrap.
"Today people say music has a healing quality, cows are giving more milk , hens are laying more eggs and plants are thriving when certain music is played. Here you arrived at a certain healing or productive procedure through accident but in effect there is a whole elaborate science of mantras and how to use these sounds for inner as well as outer well being."
# It would be laughable were the spiritual promise of salvation to sick individuals via mantras not so pernicious.
"Just because someone says Vasudevayah does not make it my name. I would advice Mr. anonymous to look at IT closely and see what impact it has on the people rather than being focused on finding faults behind a hidden name. If he has some scientific background, I invite him to come with his instruments so I can show him that just by uttering the word vasudevayah what kind of activity it’ll create in the brain, because today we measure all these things scientifically."
# Vasudev is indeed Sadhguru's current name, the label by which his body is identified in this world. Vasudevayah is a reverential utterance for the God Vasudev. If this is indeed the bija mantra (the key chanting sound) being given to most of the seekers in his ashram, there is definitely something fishy.
"The Jewish doctor he is talking about had heart and other problems that prevented her from undertaking anything strenuous, or even flying. When she came here she was expecting a hospital with drips and sick patients lying in bed. When she didn’t see that she came and asked me where was the yogic temple and I told her look at the people around you-the ones in the kitchen, those mopping the floors-these are all sick people but we put them to work. Seventy percent of all illnesses are self created. Today that doctor is still with us and she walked about 60 kms with us in the Himalayas and she has talked about her experiences on a video."
# Ok. Fair enough. She got better after staying in an ashram. See the paragraph containing the reference to the Pragmatic Fallacy at the end.
"There are thousands of people who come and go from here and I’m sure some of them are disgruntled like this man because someone rubbed them the wrong way. There are no super human beings here These are people who are imperfect and are striving to grow. If they were perfect they would not need me or anyone else."
# Maybe the person is disgruntled, maybe not. But if every critic is to be labeled as a disgruntled one because someone who is not yet perfect might have rubbed him the wrong way (and not because the critic may be saying something sensible), where is the space for questioning the "Sadhguru"?
"I must say this man’s understanding of enlightenment seems very rudimentary, especially if he has to go to the internet and describe what is a cult. He couldn’t even come up with his own interpretation."
# There are various definitions of cult and cultist methods on the internet and before calling a community a cult, it is not a bad idea to see the prevailing standards of what is normally considered a cult (e.g. by the Rick Ross Institute). If the questioner had just called the community a cult without citing the reasons, he would have been doubly reprimanded.
"Now what is a cult? Today whatever is considered religion was called a cult yesterday. That is why when Jesus was alive he was called a cultist and crucified. Anyone who did not follow the established religion was punished. I guess people may want to do the same to me but today(laughter) the law doesn’t permit it. Frankly that cult was more meaningful than the existing religion right now because people experienced it then-today its only belief and this man’s interpretation of cult is also based on western interpretation."
# Jesus was indeed trying to form a community of followers with himself as a divine leader, which in today's terms would indeed be called a cult. There is no controversy about it. Why is the Sadhguru so antagonistic to admitting that his community is indeed a cult? Because it would deter future western spiritual tourists. His response to criticism that the labeling is done from a western interpretation is indeed correct. But then, he should be forthright in admitting that from a western interpretation, his community is indeed a cult. (Do note, however, that in between the Sadhguru also does the neat thing of comparing himself to Christ.)
"If he is so concerned, disappointed and disturbed then I invite him to come and do both the basic and the next course and rip it in front of me, and make me look like a fool if he can. He should have the courage to stop his fellow humans from suffering and I would like to know myself because I’m also concerned. If he is afraid he need not reveal his name but I invite him to come and demolish the program if he can show that it doesn’t work. Why is he letting such wrong things happen to others?"
# So a critic or a sceptic should come inside a cult or an alternative medicine hospital, be bombarded with questionable therapies, group brainwashing tactics, stay with an intellectually subjugated crowd of disciples, spend time doing the practices of the cult, and only then say that "it doesn't work." Right?
Wrong. "What works" is no proof of correctness. I hope some readers are familiar with the Pragmatic Fallacy.
"If he is just there to sit and criticize or find faults without proving it scientifically then we won’t waste our time with him."
# Who is this "we"? Me, the Messiah, and my disciples. The Sadhguru needs to be told that the onus of proof of a new theory or medicine or treatment or process of enlightenment is upon the inventor, not on the sceptics.
I will be annotating "Sadhguru's" reply since this is a long text and repeating it for annotating will make it too long. The question and Sadhguru's answer are in quotes and mine are prefixed by a "#" character.
"Q: If you would review your interview you may realize the overall 'feel good' nature of Sadhguru's responses. Appeal to one's logic and reason while diverting attention away from substantive issues. Thus Shiva becomes an embodiment of Universality, and not worshipped as part of the Hindu trinity. The Dhyanalinga (a representation of Shiva in the form of a phallus), the Sanskrit slokas, the bija mantras, invoking Sadhguru's presence by chanting the hymn to Lord Vasudevaya all these are non-religious!
Also note that Sadhguru glossed over the screening process. My conscience alone knows the dedication and fervor with which I pursued this path. I wish I had paid attention to what was happening around me I would have pulled out sooner. This response again is typical of a cult. The blame is always the individual and the person's lack of faith. My experience has shown that the process is geared towards enslaving a person's mind, and as such rises to the level of a cult. I give below some of the signs typical of a cult leader that I gleaned from the net:
1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
3. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
4. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently, analyze situations, independent of the group/leader's involvement.
5. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supersede any personal goals or individual interests.
6. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
7. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
8. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
The crux of the organization is the offer of 'liberation'. This liberation is exemplified by altered states of consciousness brought on by sleep deprivation, meditation, constant chanting, yelling, screaming etc., I am now suspect of any group that requires that one suspend one's logic. Since this 'knowledge' is 'beyond' logic.
In any scientific study the results are open to scrutiny. The results ought to be both reliable and repeatable. A pharmaceutical company cannot claim that the randomness in the efficacy of their drug is due to the doubting nature and short attention span of the patients. But this is precisely what these organizations get away with. Could the Sadhguru tell us how many else became enlightened through his process besides himself. Why then the claim that the 'inner possibility' is as open to Shyam as it was to the Buddha or Sadhguru himself. With regard to the altered states of consciousness itself: it is not limited to Yoga or Hinduism - we can find it in the sects of Christian Pentacosts, Islamic Sufism, Dervishes, Sri Sri Sri Ravishankar etc., To lay out a process that brings about these states and then use it to convince people that they have found THE way is both disingenuous and duplicitous.
Do not be a follower, but be a prophet unto thy own. During my days in Isha there was this Jewish doctor who was sought by Sadhguru as well as a competitor to serve in their ashram. Sadhguru preaches about his yoga hospital in the ashram where people are treated in holistic methods. This doctor who visited the ashram reported that she was shocked to find that there was no such hospital in existence. We collectively reasoned this away by convincing ourselves that it is his intention to bring the yogic hospital to fruition in the future. Alas such is the power of mindless delusion! - Name withheld on request
A:
"Spiritual science is about inner well being. To create the inner well being we use every possible method that life allows. Modern science has proved that the whole existence is just a reverberation of energy."
# Such simplistic reductions of modern theories of (e.g.) quantum mechanics and general relativity is quite common by modern day charlatans such as the venerable Deepak Chopra. The trend was probably begun by the physicist Fritjof Kapra when he published his opus "The Tao of Physics". To get further insight into these antics, do refer to an article about Quantum Quackery.
"Where there is a vibration there is bound to be a sound. "
# Firstly he reduces the universe to "reverberation of energy" which is then equated with "vibration". Then he reduces "vibration" to "sound". Sound is the perception (e.g., by a human being) of a pressure wave traveling through a matter medium. Sound waves are completely distinct from electromagnetic waves, which are completely different from quantum mechanical waveforms and probability clouds.
"So the whole existence is seen as yoga of complex amalgamation of sound. What you call the cosmos is a complex web of sound called nadabrahma. In it are some key sounds."
# Certifiable bullshit. There is no sound at all in the pervasive vacuum which exists in space.
"These key sounds when applied to the right door can open a whole dimension for you."
# Presumably, the new dimension is the so-called extra sensory realm.
"This is how a mantra works. You cannot look at everything also from a religious perspective. The reason you do that is because of the culture you were brought up on and the tools that were used to create that inner well being in you. May be some religions have staked a claim on these mantras or these tools but that doesn’t make it religious."
# The questioner is probably questioning whether the label "secular" can be applied to the chanting of Sanskrit mantras praising Hindu deities. The "Sadhguru" is responding that the mantras are generic and are not tied to any particular religion. In fact bija mantras (or the key sounds) are quite specific aspects of Hindu theology. They hardly find any mention in the religions and cults outside India and its neighboring countries.
"In India we light a lamp in the evening. It may look like a religious ritual - before sunset light a lamp before God, but when there was no electricity then lighting a lamp was basic common sense, isn’t it?"
# Lighting a lamp is not a religious ritual, dear "Sadhguru", lighting a lamp in front of a deity is! Never was "common sense" so evident.
"So there is an elaborate science of mantras behind the process of using sounds for inner well being."
# There may well be. Music and chanting do effect one's mind, make it calm or agitated (depending upon the music). Music or mantra therapy to treat physical or psychological disorders is a stream of new age healing, just like Pranic healing, Reiki, crystal and gemstone therapy, and other such claptrap.
"Today people say music has a healing quality, cows are giving more milk , hens are laying more eggs and plants are thriving when certain music is played. Here you arrived at a certain healing or productive procedure through accident but in effect there is a whole elaborate science of mantras and how to use these sounds for inner as well as outer well being."
# It would be laughable were the spiritual promise of salvation to sick individuals via mantras not so pernicious.
"Just because someone says Vasudevayah does not make it my name. I would advice Mr. anonymous to look at IT closely and see what impact it has on the people rather than being focused on finding faults behind a hidden name. If he has some scientific background, I invite him to come with his instruments so I can show him that just by uttering the word vasudevayah what kind of activity it’ll create in the brain, because today we measure all these things scientifically."
# Vasudev is indeed Sadhguru's current name, the label by which his body is identified in this world. Vasudevayah is a reverential utterance for the God Vasudev. If this is indeed the bija mantra (the key chanting sound) being given to most of the seekers in his ashram, there is definitely something fishy.
"The Jewish doctor he is talking about had heart and other problems that prevented her from undertaking anything strenuous, or even flying. When she came here she was expecting a hospital with drips and sick patients lying in bed. When she didn’t see that she came and asked me where was the yogic temple and I told her look at the people around you-the ones in the kitchen, those mopping the floors-these are all sick people but we put them to work. Seventy percent of all illnesses are self created. Today that doctor is still with us and she walked about 60 kms with us in the Himalayas and she has talked about her experiences on a video."
# Ok. Fair enough. She got better after staying in an ashram. See the paragraph containing the reference to the Pragmatic Fallacy at the end.
"There are thousands of people who come and go from here and I’m sure some of them are disgruntled like this man because someone rubbed them the wrong way. There are no super human beings here These are people who are imperfect and are striving to grow. If they were perfect they would not need me or anyone else."
# Maybe the person is disgruntled, maybe not. But if every critic is to be labeled as a disgruntled one because someone who is not yet perfect might have rubbed him the wrong way (and not because the critic may be saying something sensible), where is the space for questioning the "Sadhguru"?
"I must say this man’s understanding of enlightenment seems very rudimentary, especially if he has to go to the internet and describe what is a cult. He couldn’t even come up with his own interpretation."
# There are various definitions of cult and cultist methods on the internet and before calling a community a cult, it is not a bad idea to see the prevailing standards of what is normally considered a cult (e.g. by the Rick Ross Institute). If the questioner had just called the community a cult without citing the reasons, he would have been doubly reprimanded.
"Now what is a cult? Today whatever is considered religion was called a cult yesterday. That is why when Jesus was alive he was called a cultist and crucified. Anyone who did not follow the established religion was punished. I guess people may want to do the same to me but today(laughter) the law doesn’t permit it. Frankly that cult was more meaningful than the existing religion right now because people experienced it then-today its only belief and this man’s interpretation of cult is also based on western interpretation."
# Jesus was indeed trying to form a community of followers with himself as a divine leader, which in today's terms would indeed be called a cult. There is no controversy about it. Why is the Sadhguru so antagonistic to admitting that his community is indeed a cult? Because it would deter future western spiritual tourists. His response to criticism that the labeling is done from a western interpretation is indeed correct. But then, he should be forthright in admitting that from a western interpretation, his community is indeed a cult. (Do note, however, that in between the Sadhguru also does the neat thing of comparing himself to Christ.)
"If he is so concerned, disappointed and disturbed then I invite him to come and do both the basic and the next course and rip it in front of me, and make me look like a fool if he can. He should have the courage to stop his fellow humans from suffering and I would like to know myself because I’m also concerned. If he is afraid he need not reveal his name but I invite him to come and demolish the program if he can show that it doesn’t work. Why is he letting such wrong things happen to others?"
# So a critic or a sceptic should come inside a cult or an alternative medicine hospital, be bombarded with questionable therapies, group brainwashing tactics, stay with an intellectually subjugated crowd of disciples, spend time doing the practices of the cult, and only then say that "it doesn't work." Right?
Wrong. "What works" is no proof of correctness. I hope some readers are familiar with the Pragmatic Fallacy.
"If he is just there to sit and criticize or find faults without proving it scientifically then we won’t waste our time with him."
# Who is this "we"? Me, the Messiah, and my disciples. The Sadhguru needs to be told that the onus of proof of a new theory or medicine or treatment or process of enlightenment is upon the inventor, not on the sceptics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
