http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/03/o...-case.html
However, if the 2nd comment (by Incognito) implies there is more to the Nityananda situ than merely that actress incident, then I think Incognito should make such details public. No one wants dangerous people and orgs to work with Hindu children or the old traditional Hindus, or to be influencing these.
* IMO the actual Swamis of the Hindu religion tend to be those down-to-earth, roll-up-your-sleeves kind - like Swami Lakshmananda I imagine - who have no religious movement in their name/around their persons, but rather belong to and hence promote the general (traditional) Hindu religion. They just help other Hindus become more consciously Hindu (mainstream Hindu) - making these aware and knowledgeable of their ancient religion - instead of getting these to join a specific modern ashram or movement.
In contrast, from what I can tell, the famous personality kinds often turn out to be disappointments (or worse) or can and frequently do get hijacked and subverted easily at any time. These last also tend to consciously universalise their movement (for global and cross-religious appeal) over time, rather than insisting on being part of the Hindu religion, and yet at the same time they frequently also end up bottling parts of Hindu Dharmic religion to sell as something "universal"/"belonging to all religions" (i.e. selling Hindu religion without even acknowledging it is specifically Hindu) when it most specifically is NOT universal: all aspects of the Hindu religion belong to the Hindu religion alone.
And the following may just be my preference, but I find that that which strengthens mainstream Hindu Dharma (the traditional kind unaffiliated to modern movements) is more reliable, especially in the long run. (That's not to say I'm not grateful for genuine seva work done among the deserving Hindus - where this is done without any aims of spreading a new movement/getting traditional Hindus to join up.)
So am wondering, where does Nityananda and his Dhyanapeetam fall? (Obviously, I wouldn't know since this last week is the first I heard about him.) Wish people like those commenting at Rajeev2004 and whose words imply they know somewhat (more) of Nityananda and his organisation - would actually write (all of) what they do know. When Hindus are forced to form an opinion on something - as they are whenever they're force-fed anti-Hindu 'news' by christomedia - better that that be as informed an opinion as possible.
Quote:2 CommentsHave no expectations of "Swami"-ness from jetsetting personalities and/or those who also have movements in their own name/built up around them and have a "global" (i.e. incl. western) following/mission*, but people and orgs doing good seva work to help vulnerable Hindus are welcome for their work.
Close this window
Jump to comment form
Anjaneya said...
what is swami nityananda guilty of?? is it illegal in karnataka or TN to do what everyone does? I cant believe Shadow warrior is talking in those terms.
There is no crime, this is a non issue.
3/05/2010 6:30 AM
Incognito said...
This is serious issue much more than is currently exposed.
3/05/2010 8:58 AM
However, if the 2nd comment (by Incognito) implies there is more to the Nityananda situ than merely that actress incident, then I think Incognito should make such details public. No one wants dangerous people and orgs to work with Hindu children or the old traditional Hindus, or to be influencing these.
* IMO the actual Swamis of the Hindu religion tend to be those down-to-earth, roll-up-your-sleeves kind - like Swami Lakshmananda I imagine - who have no religious movement in their name/around their persons, but rather belong to and hence promote the general (traditional) Hindu religion. They just help other Hindus become more consciously Hindu (mainstream Hindu) - making these aware and knowledgeable of their ancient religion - instead of getting these to join a specific modern ashram or movement.
In contrast, from what I can tell, the famous personality kinds often turn out to be disappointments (or worse) or can and frequently do get hijacked and subverted easily at any time. These last also tend to consciously universalise their movement (for global and cross-religious appeal) over time, rather than insisting on being part of the Hindu religion, and yet at the same time they frequently also end up bottling parts of Hindu Dharmic religion to sell as something "universal"/"belonging to all religions" (i.e. selling Hindu religion without even acknowledging it is specifically Hindu) when it most specifically is NOT universal: all aspects of the Hindu religion belong to the Hindu religion alone.
And the following may just be my preference, but I find that that which strengthens mainstream Hindu Dharma (the traditional kind unaffiliated to modern movements) is more reliable, especially in the long run. (That's not to say I'm not grateful for genuine seva work done among the deserving Hindus - where this is done without any aims of spreading a new movement/getting traditional Hindus to join up.)
So am wondering, where does Nityananda and his Dhyanapeetam fall? (Obviously, I wouldn't know since this last week is the first I heard about him.) Wish people like those commenting at Rajeev2004 and whose words imply they know somewhat (more) of Nityananda and his organisation - would actually write (all of) what they do know. When Hindus are forced to form an opinion on something - as they are whenever they're force-fed anti-Hindu 'news' by christomedia - better that that be as informed an opinion as possible.