Response to FIRSTPOST on the Scheme Suit issue – by Bireshwar Choudhury

On 14 January 2016, the Editor of the FIRSTPOST has referred in passing to the petitioners of the Scheme Suit in a most disparaging manner in an article titled “SC has shown great foresight in striking against proxy PILs as instruments of intimidation”.  As an admirer of this website, which has dared to take on the likes of Wendy Doniger, it is strange that it has now decided to support one of “Wendy’s children” – Peter Heehs (read this post). But I hope I can attribute this error to factual ignorance and unfamiliarity with the recent problems in Sri Aurobindo Ashram. If that be the case, I would like to point out a few outright errors in the write-up for the clarification of the larger readership connected with the FIRSTPOST, which hopefully would set the record right or at least give us a chance to give our version of events on its website. I quote from the article:

  ...full text...

Letter of Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan & Sumita Kandpal to Manoj Das Gupta on 2 July, 2010

To

Manoj Dasgupta

We thank you for the letter dated 21-6-10 containing the reply to our questions. We are however both surprised and disappointed that the letter was not signed by you but by Dilip Dutta. You will remember that this whole process started when we wanted to talk to you and you alone and not to the other members of the Trust. We would like to know your reasons for not signing the letter. Are you in disagreement with the contents of the letter?

Secondly, as quite expected from the authors of this letter, it is an exercise in obfuscating facts and  in deception. Many issues have been  avoided altogether.

We shall now take up some of the issues raised in this letter. It is not our intention to reply to all the points for that would require at least a volume. We are therefore taking up some specific points.

  ...full text...

Ashram Trust's Reply of 21 June 2010 to Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan & Sumita Kandpal

Dear Friends,

Your above letter was placed before the Board of trustees.

Essentially the letter dated 28.05.2010 focuses on the following broad issues:

a.     Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and the responsibilities of its trustees

b.     The book entitled "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo".

c.     Whether the author of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" continues to remain an inmate of the Ashram, and if so how and why

d.    Whether the finances of the Ashram are misused and

e.     Disciplinary proceedings regarding some persons who were inmates of the Ashram.

Here are the answers for your satisfaction.

  ...full text...

Letter of Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan & Sumita Kandpal to Manoj Das Gupta on 28 May, 2010

[The following letter was written by three senior Ashramites – Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan & Sumita Kandpal (retired Collector) – to Manoj Das Gupta, Managing Trustee of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. The letter stated the views and concern of most of the Ashramites and devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother regarding the Peter Heehs issue. The letter is still relevant to the present situation which has more or less remained unchanged as far as the intransigent attitude of the Managing Trustee is concerned.] 

  ...full text...

The Sri Aurobindo Ashram and its Internal Management ─ by Ranganath Raghavan

Our world is the sphere of imperfection and limitation, but it is moving towards perfection, though through a long, laborious aeonic process of evolution. But the affairs of men cannot wait for that far-off ideal to be materialised. Therefore the search for improvement in every field is constantly present and operative—again through stumblings, errors and blunders.

There is absolutely no doubt that, after the Mother  left her body, the Sri Aurobindo Ashram has been beset with problems — externally, due to the pressure, impact and invasion of world forces and negative influences; internally, due to our own errors (inevitable, be it noted) of judgment, mismanagement and partisan attitude.  How then do we solve this fundamental problem not peculiar to our own institution?

When a spiritual institution is led by spiritual, highly enlightened beings, capable of right action and control of the forces referred to above, they have access to superior powers beyond the mental plane from where solutions are initiated and worked out. The higher the consciousness of the leader, the more the control and better the management of day to day events.

  ...full text...

The Trust's Declaration and its Falsehood ─ Ranganath Raghavan

The Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust has put out a declaration in public which includes this passage:

The considered view of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust is that it does not project itself in the role of dictating to readers and followers of Sri Aurobindo, as to what they should read and what they should not read. Each person is at complete liberty to decide for himself whether he finds any book to be meaningful and useful, or whether he does not find it to be so, and Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust respects and has full faith in the intellectual and  spiritual discernment of the readers. No one should or needs to force his personal opinions on any other reader in general, and more particularly on the followers of Sri Aurobindo.

The intention is obviously to convey to the public at large how large-hearted and how catholic is their view, how open and wide-minded, how impartial, how devoid of parti-pris they are. They are literally advertising their “tolerance”. They want people to know how freely they let Ashramites exercise their freedom of speech, and how non-interfering their stand is.

  ...full text...

Spirituality, Religion, Fundamentalism -- by Ranganath Raghavan

Does open-mindedness and catholicity become so vast that you allow violence against yourself?  And allow yourself  to lose your own aims and values ? Do you grow so vast that you become a colourless, featureless neutrality and fall prey to an attack at the very foundations of your spiritual life? (extract)

  ...full text...

The Ashram Management’s Fear Psychosis -- Ranganath Raghavan

[Why are the trustees so frightened of publicity? Why this nervousness? Who generally exhibits this kind of fear psychosis? Those who have things to hide and who are afraid that the truth will go against them! Those who stand for truth should not fear anything; they should not fear publicity of their views.(extract)] [more...]

  ...full text...

Ranganath Raghavan's Response to "A Declaration of Solidarity"

To Jay Raichuria and Meera Gupta (Sabda)

To anyone reading your “Declaration” casually and superficially, it will appear to contain very sound reflections and plausible ideas. But a closer scrutiny will reveal  that the words are high sounding without  solid content. We are having a closer look at your declaration  in a more deliberate manner  and these are my reactions. 

“The nature of the attack against the Ashram…”  

 1.   It is NOT an attack against the Ashram, it is a peaceful protest by some of the Ashramites and devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother against the non-action (or rather active support) of the management, against an offender who, even while being an Ashramite, thinks it is admissible, even justifiable to find fault with the Guru. This is absolutely inadmissible in any spiritual life, specially so in the Indian tradition.

“The Ashram Trust has done nothing to deny or hamper either of these interconnected aims. None can say that the environment in the Ashram is not conducive to or does not facilitate the practice of their own sadhana. That should be our primary concern.”

2.  Not true. Several members of the Ashram have been removed from their usual work, thus interfering with their normal functions. This has been done often for petty egoistic reasons, allowing the members to draw the conclusion that to insult Sri Aurobindo is admissible but to criticize other Ashramites is punishable. What could be more foolish than this!! Besides, we may say that individual sadhana is not the only purpose in the Ashram. The collective sadhana is equally important and this imposes many responsibilities on the management which they have to discharge with great care and equity. Removing members from their work spots on relatively flimsy grounds does not seem to meet the requirements expected of the trustees.

  ...full text...

Response to Richard Hartz’s “Ghost of Things Dead” – by Ranganath Raghavan

In Richard’s article, there is an implied, if not overt correlation, even an equation between the secular, the progressive, the rational mind and the Future. Again there is an equivalence implied or otherwise, between the retrograde forces of the Past and the irrational and religious. But here the religious is often extended into the legitimately spiritual! Another suggested notion is that Religion and Spirituality are faith-based and irrational and that Secularism and Rationality, devoid of Religion, belong to the Future. These understated implications are certainly not true. Religion and Spirituality are not the same, but there is no clear-cut line dividing the two trenchantly. They merge into one another and often overlap. Secondly, Spirituality need not contradict Rationality although it can go beyond into the Logic of the Infinite. Neither is Science free from faith.



Response to Richard Hartz’s “Ghost of Things Dead” – by Ranganath Raghavan

A four page article which was presented by Richard Hartz at an Auroville seminar discusses the related concepts of progress and evolution. He considers the forces tending towards the Future and those forces that pull backwards towards the Past. Whatever the intellectual and philosophical principles raised by the author, it is clear that he is examining the phenomenon of Fundamentalism. This is the issue that came up in the wake of the publication of the book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” by Peter Heehs. In the book, Peter treats Sri Aurobindo as an ordinary mortal, who was as vulnerable as any normal human being. He finds that Sri Aurobindo is no philosopher; nor is he a poet — his poetry is outdated; he is a liar; he is responsible for the Hindu-Moslem divide; he married for sex; his spiritual experiences are questionable; it is doubtful whether he is an avatar, as claimed by his faithful followers; he did not know how to plan his books — some chapters are too long, some are too short; his language is too abstruse, involved, difficult to follow, and much more. There are some passages which are laudatory, but the general tone of the whole book is “I am being objective; I am not writing a hagiographic biography. I am going to judge him with my analytic and rational mind. I will judge him on merit.” This attitude of mental arrogance of a petty kind with no experience whatsoever of spiritual realities runs through every page of the book!!!

The problem, for most ashramites, is that he has been a member of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram for the last thirty years or so — not a very willing and enthusiastic member by his own confession. He feels he has the right and the freedom to find fault with Sri Aurobindo, even while being a member of the ashram, enjoying all its facilities, being supported by all its infrastructure, working in an ashram department, eating at the common mess, and using its extensive sports facilities. As a matter of fact, he was a member of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives where he had access to classified unpublished documents which he used in his book, without permission from the Trust. He even claimed to be the founder of the Archives Department, which is completely false, as testified and clarified by the Ashram authorities themselves.

This was the situation when some alert members of the Ashram pointed out these transgressions and demanded strict action. These ashramites, loyal and faithful to their Guru, were immediately branded as “Fundamentalists” who were narrow minded, mean, uncivilized, violent and with a mob mentality. They were accused of not understanding the very important concept of Freedom of Speech, of not being tolerant and wide-minded. In short, they were considered fossils, petrified into fixity by the past. They should have been “rational, secular”, according to the grand concepts of the Western World. This is the background of the article by Richard Hartz which is just a continuation of the same old argument under the guise of an intellectual and rational justification.

It is true that Evolution is the result of two contrary forces: the force of progress towards the Future and the force of retardation by the Past. Sri Aurobindo states in the Record of Yoga that there is the Law of Gradual Change and the Law of Resistance. The Law of Resistance to change operates most effectively in the physical world. It is this law that ensures the permanence of forms. It is the cause of fixity and apparent stability of well- defined forms. But the law of gradual change initiates a slow, often imperceptible mutation. It is this force that makes possible the evolution of consciousness. It brings in complexity, completeness and a forward movement. Progress then becomes possible. But to the Yogin, who wants a rapid change of consciousness, it appears as if the law of resistance is much more powerful than the law of gradual change. Progress seems to be interminably slow!

Now it is contended in Richard’s article that the forward movement of Progress (let us call it ‘the Future’) is challenged always by the forces of the ‘Past’. As evolution proceeds, the past is littered with the corpses of outdated forms, ideas, concepts and morals. The Future is always throwing up new and better forms in all the fields, physical, vital, mental and spiritual.

The question, then, to be considered is what does the Future reject and what does the Past try to preserve. Is the Future always a linear forward movement? Does not the Future throw up forms that may be rejected later? Is the Past invariably full of dead, meaningless outdated forms? Does not the Past retain and preserve some ancient forms and carry them well into the Future? Is there no Sanatana Dharma?

A little consideration will show that all the movements mentioned above do occur and the evolutionary progress is never a simple linear movement. Progress is the result of complex and heterogeneous forces. It can be more accurately described as a spiral motion, with swift advances and perhaps more often, discouraging recoils. It is the recognition of this truth that Indian thought expressed in the concept of the Yugas: Satya, Dwapara, Treta and the Kali. There is a slow decline of values tending downwards and ending in a complete chaos from which emerges once again the Satya Yuga when Harmony, Light and Truth are established at a higher level. Then the cycle begins all over again.

Now to come down to brass tacks.

In Richard’s article, there is an implied, if not overt correlation, even an equation between the secular, the progressive, the rational mind and the Future. Again there is an equivalence implied or otherwise, between the retrograde forces of the Past and the irrational and religious. But here the religious is often extended into the legitimately spiritual! Another suggested notion is that Religion and Spirituality are faith-based and irrational and that Secularism and Rationality, devoid of Religion, belong to the Future. These understated implications are certainly not true. Religion and Spirituality are not the same, but there is no clear-cut line dividing the two trenchantly. They merge into one another and often overlap. Secondly, Spirituality need not contradict Rationality although it can go beyond into the Logic of the Infinite. Neither is Science free from faith. In fact the march of Science starts always from assumed axioms, postulates, hypotheses, which are conveniently thrown overboard or suitably enlarged to include new data. These Scientific postulates are in the nature of faith. Thus finally we are confronted with the one question relevant to The Lives of Sri Aurobindo. Are loyalty, faith, trust and devotion to the Guru elements of Fundamentalism? Are they things that the Future will throw out as inconsistent with Rationality and Progress? Or are they valuable principles to be retained eternally in spiritual life? Here again, it may be noted, that if one is not doing yoga, or one is not affiliated to any particular group or has not accepted any fixed line of sadhana, then one is perfectly at liberty to compare methods, analyse statements, and even find shortcomings in systems of yoga or philosophies. But here too a humble admission that the mind cannot understand things beyond itself should be made. The ignorant, limited, arrogant mind does not see this simple truth. A healthy attitude of “I do not know yet” is infinitely better than the insistence on false ideas or half-truths. But once someone has chosen by his own free will a particular discipline under a Guru, it must be followed with reverence, faith and implicit trust. This truth is not likely to be thrown out by the Future and trampled on the wayside. It is a well established principle in all yogas. The flouting of this very elementary rule can seriously damage the institution and also the erring individual.

Richard himself admits, or rather quotes Sri Aurobindo to say that Spirituality will ultimately triumph and even some lesser men are quoted to voice the opinion that it is most doubtful that Secularism will replace religion.

In defining Secularism, we may say that it is the attempt to keep religion out of all human activities and confine it to a small corner of life. An hour or so in the Church only on Sundays is enough of a concession to Religion, which should not meddle in other fields of life. This attitude towards religion is quite understandable in the context of European history. The testimony of history is there for all to see — the sale of indulgences, the Crusades, the burning of witches at the stake. But in India, the reigning idea has always been to see and do everything with reference to God. Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahman No festival, no social function, no important occasion is ever observed without bringing in the Divine. Thus Sri Aurobindo’s statement that Spirituality will spread and replace Secularism is most rational and inevitable. Let us remember that in the very first paragraph of the Life Divine, he asserts that the earliest concepts of God, Light, Freedom and Immortality will return after every banishment. We have seen this happen already in the past history of humanity.

Where does all this lead us to? Are we allowed to criticize the Guru of the path that we have chosen? What would be the fate of the institution if we start demolishing the very pillars and foundations of the structure? For that matter, is freedom of speech really absolute? Are there not natural barriers to it? Is malicious fault-finding tolerated in any organization?


Ranganath Raghavan

7 March 2010


Ranganath has already written on the concept of Fundamentalism on this site. Readers can go to the following web address to read his reply to "faithful" supporters of Peter Heehs:

http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/2009/05/ranganaths-reply-to-accusation-of.html

  ...full text...

The Appeal by Julian Lines for Harmony and Peace -- by Ranganath Raghavan

[Julian Lines, a close friend of Peter Heehs, wrote a letter to us on 22 April, 2009 appealing for peace and harmony. Here is Ranganath Raghavan's reply to it.]

The appeal seems to be a sincere and deeply felt reaction to the ongoing matter connected with the author of the book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo”. If so, it is certainly to be welcomed and appreciated. But it could also be motivated by a desire to get Peter Heehs off the hook and save him from the predicament he finds himself in.

But if a true and lasting harmony is to be established, then the real genesis of the problem must be identified with an objective, sincere attempt, free of all hang-ups, personal, preferential, racial or otherwise.

An objective view will immediately perceive the origin of the crisis to be the following:   ...full text...

Ranganath’s Reply to the Accusation of Religious Fundamentalism

Alok Pandey, Shradhalu Ranade, Anand Reddy and a few others, who had objected to Peter Heehs’ book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” are being branded as “religious fundamentalists”, because they think that criticism of the Guru is wrong, and particularly so by a sadhak-member of the Ashram Community. The “broad-minded, objective, so-called practitioners of the Integral Yoga” and supporters of Peter Heehs do not mind if the Guru is criticized, denigrated, and found fault with. They have no objection to a limited, error-prone mental judgment being passed on the Guru, who lives on the highest planes of Consciousness possible to man.

It is to be clearly noted that criticism of the Guru by one who claims to be a practitioner of the Integral Yoga, and one who is living in the Ashram as an inmate , enjoying all its facilities, its infrastructure, material and spiritual support, is not only wrong but harmful to the institution and even to himself. There is no problem when a third person who is neither a sadhak nor a follower of the Integral Path does so. The attack can be dealt with in other ways — by intellectual discussion, by persuasion, etc. This sort of thing has happened several times in the past, even during Sri Aurobindo’s life time.

Who is a religious fundamentalist? It is one who insists on the sole truth of his religion, denies the truths of other religions, and imposes his limited views, very often by physical force, on those who do not share his beliefs. First of all, there is a big difference between religion and spirituality, but let that pass. A sadhak who objects to the falsification of the teaching, or stands for the truths of his Guru within the Community to which he belongs can hardly be called a fundamentalist!!

The characteristics of religious fundamentalism are listed as eleven by the all-wise so-called rationalists of the SCIY forum. Let us examine them one by one.


1. Rejection of Complexity

Complexity is not inconsistent with a basic simplicity.

Complexity by itself need not be raised to the status of an absolute desirable principle.

Complexity can lead to many errors and misjudgments. It can obfuscate simple truths, and, by convoluted arguments, end in self-deceit. Complexity can become an easy excuse for losing the woods for the trees.


2. Demand for Doctrinal Purity

There is nothing wrong with the demand for Doctrinal Purity. In fact it could be considered essential under certain circumstances. It is an inflexible, rigid stand that denies the truths of other paths that is undesirable and dangerous, if the rejection is carried out on the physical plane with violence. But the rejection of falsehood within the community is certainly not undesirable.

Purity of any teaching must be maintained. Enlargement of the field of purity can cause dilution, leading to falsehood. On the other hand, enlargement that includes the original purity may be also quite acceptable.


3. Feeling of being threatened

When the threat does not exist, the feelings are not justified. But when a real threat of falsehood, perverse interpretation, outright lies and personally motivated comments without any basis are disseminated, widely circulated, then not only must the threat be seen clearly, but all action to counter it becomes, not only necessary, but imperative and indispensable.


4. Control of information

There is no control of information in our stand. Rather the opposite is true. “Information”, unwanted, false, downright libelous is being circulated and passed off as authentic and official. That is what the wide distribution of a printed book does. It has a tendency to “legitimise” such false information — particularly when the author has an “official position”, wrongly claimed in the book itself. The author of “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” claims to be the founder of the “Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives”, which is a blatant lie and intended to inject authenticity in the contents of the book. In such a case, the rectification, by the denial of the falsehood contained in the book, is the prime duty of those who desire to give the right information.


5. Exclusivism

Here too, as in the other cases, exclusivism is not necessarily a sin. When it is a negative rejection of fresh ideas, without sufficient rational consideration of whether these ideas are acceptable or not, then it is a narrow and blind attitude. But if after a careful consideration of the new ideas, they are found to be contradictory to the basic teaching of the Guru, then a rejection is obviously needed. Non-exclusiveness does not mean a wholesale, indiscriminate, pell-mell acceptance of all ideas.


6. Opposition to Discussion

Where is the opposition to discussion? Again this does not mean that one is obliged to accept all ideas that are being forwarded by the opponents. The right of rejection is always a prerogative in any debate.


7. Abusive Language

Abusive language is never justified, but a strong rebuttal of the false opinions expressed in the book is always justified. Also the rejector has the right of “proportional” rebuttal, commensurate to the text being rejected.


8. Rousing the masses

This has to be understood correctly. There has been NO ROUSING of the masses by the initial objectors to the book by Peter Heehs. The masses have been roused by the blatant lies and self-opiniated comments of the author that are ignorant, foolish and motivated and intended to “ingratiate him to the academics of the West”. This is exactly what happened in this case. Richard Hartz and his band of supporters are making it sound as if Hitler and Goebbels have “roused the masses” by their false propaganda. Nothing of the sort happened. The book has been forcefully rejected, and the falsehood contained in it had, by itself, the power to rally all lovers and devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.

The French Revolution, the Bangladesh Uprising, Mahatma Gandhi’s rousing of the masses during the Indian independence movement, are all examples of the truth and necessity of bringing revolution to the masses. They were spontaneous uprisings against falsehood and injustice. Having said that, let it be clearly and firmly stated that the “rousing” was not “caused” by anybody (as falsely claimed), nor was there any such intention in the minds and hearts of the first objectors. The truth of their stand itself was enough to initiate and snowball into a mass movement of resentment and anger.


9. Atmosphere of Violence

No one in his senses will justify violence without sufficient reason. But when fighting blatant injustice, violence may very well be justified. The freedom movements around the world against the intransigent colonialism of the West with all its rapaciousness, greed, selfish and cruel grabbing of all that did not belong to it by military might, are certainly justified. But the mindless violence of the terrorist imposing his narrow and ignorant views on the rest of the world is certainly wrong. In the present case, violence is certainly to be condemned, if it has occurred without justification. There was no physical violence except in two cases, when an inflamed disciple had an argument with Heehs, and when the author’s cycle tube was cut by a group of kids. If this is supposed to be violence, then it is indeed laughable.


10. Demonising the enemy

Here again the enemy may or may not be the demon. But if the enemy attacks the very Avatar, – Sri Aurobindo – the very representative of the Divine on earth, are we not justified in calling the enemy an anti-divine force? This may not be acceptable to the personal friends and admirers of Heehs. But the large number of devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother HAVE felt strongly the attack to be that of a dark force. There is no need to shy away from this rather “seemingly” extreme statement. It is a truth whose vindication will come out in due time. Each sadhak and follower of the Integral Yoga must recognise this fact and stand up boldly and reject the book. It is possible that the author of the book has become an instrument of this dark force without being fully conscious of the implications of his actions. But that does not diminish the seriousness of his misbehaviour.


11. Heroic Role in a great Cosmic Drama

There is absolutely no motive of heroism or any other in the first objectors to the book. Motives are being ascribed to them — personal and selfish motives. The only motive is to stand up for the truth and honour of their Gurus. In fact, why don’t Richard Hartz and Co. come and announce their motives publicly?

Rather the motive of the author of the book was to be recognised as a “scholar” by the academia of the West!! What a motive for a “so-called sadhak” of the Integral Yoga, after having stayed for thirty years in the Ashram and enjoying all its basic infrastructure, hospitality and support!!!

The motives of Richard Hartz and Co. are clearly the return of Peter Heehs to the Archives so that he may continue his dubious activities all over again.


Ranganath Raghavan
May 2009


  ...full text...

Ranganath's reply to Angiras

[Editorial Note: "Angiras" is the pseudonym under which Richard Hartz has been writing on the SCIY website. The following is the reply of Ranganath Raghavan to “Angiras”. It may be recalled that Ranganath had written to the Trustees of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in September 2008. Richard Hartz, aka "Angiras", wrote a detailed commentary of this note in defence of Peter Heehs on the SCIY website. This is Ranganath's reply. The indented text in italics is from Angiras' article where each quote from Ranganath’s letter is followed by his comments. This is now followed by Ranganath’s reply to Angiras, which are in normal type (except when he again quotes Angiras) and without any indentation.]

Before I embark on the refutation of Angiras’ contentions, let me point out that I am not inclined to engage in long drawn-out arguments and counter-arguments, because it is a useless and fruitless exercise with no end to the process. This is therefore a one-time reply to straighten the twists in the article by Angiras. There will be no follow up on this.

The author of the “The Role of Peter Heehs in the Archives” stands firmly his ground without hesitation and can declare confidently that Angiras’ arguments are wrong in logic as well as in the interpretation of quotations from Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.

It is to be noted that all that follows in my reply applies only to a person who has opted to join a spiritual institution on his own free will, after having accepted as Guru the spiritual leader of the institution. By joining this institution, he voluntarily submits himself to its rules, regulations and conventions. It is a well known accepted principle of spiritual life that once having opted for a Guru, one accepts him as a representative of the Divine. If this psychological attitude is not possible for the aspirant, he then leaves the institution on his own and goes elsewhere. But opposition, disagreement, criticism of the Guru, even while living in the organisation and enjoying all its facilities, is not only unacceptable but can lead to spiritual hara-kiri.

  ...full text...