The Kheper website includes long sections on various spiritual and esoteric teachings, gurus and so-called gurus, and other topics of interest. The reader may be curious as to why I have devoted pages to someone who is not a guru (and never claimed to be), but instead is basically just a slanderer (and flaming is nothing new on the internet!) and follower of an abusive guru.
The reason is because I believe that one cannot understand the modus operandi of abusive gurus without also understanding the behaviour and methodology of their followers.
Perhaps simplistically speaking, guru followers, deveotees, and disciples can be divided into two types, with most individuals being a combination of both. These two types are found equally in the case of all gurus, whether abusive or genuine.
The first type (the Pure Devotee) has the attitude of devotion, tolerance, and personal and spiritual good will. Astrologically, this is what is called the neptunian type. Here the Higher Self is slowly coming to the fore to lead the Adhar (personality). It matters not whether they follow an abusive guru or a genuine guru, their response is the same. For such a person, anything the guru says and does can be the way to enlightenment. If they are fortunate to have a genuine Guru ( a sadguru), then their progress will be swift. If they have the misfortunate of an abusive guru, their progress will be slower, but even that cannot stop them. Because at best (although this isn't always the case) they have the attitude of surrender to the Divine, and that way even the worst abuse of a bad guru cannot hurt them (nor can the slings and arrows of everyday life) because everything is offered up to God. The downside is that such a devotee has little or no critical faculties, being overly gullible (strong heart development but little head), and hence will rationalise abuse as the Master's fiery love, necessary to break down the walls of the ego. They may get upset when outsiders criticise their beloved guru, but put it down to ignorance on their part, and never becaome all bitter and twisted over it. Most abusive gurus seem to have a following of these sort of people, and this is why it is easy to be fooled into thinking that a false guru is really genuine, because their followers are (often) so inspiring; indeed, of a very much higher moral status than the abusive guru him or her self.
The second type (the Slanderous Devotee) is the opposite. Here the Higher Self is entirely latent or even absent, and the outer personality is directed instead by false light, and dominated by Freudian ego-defense mechanisms. Highly narcissistic, authoritarian, obsessional, and sometimes (although not always) puritanical, this class of devotee consider that the whole universe revolves arpund them, or more specifically around their beloved guru as a psychological ego projection of themself. Woe betide anyone foolish enough to criticise their guru (which they take as an attack on them personally), for the formerly pleasant devotee will transform into a veritable Mr Hyde, and spare no effort in slander and defamation. The authentic guru will direct the devotee's attention to this personality fault, and teach instead compassion and non-violence. The abusive guru -0 and here indeed we see the perfect test - and their organisation will encourage such an abusive individual, indeed use them as bully boys to further their aims and conceal their crimes.
Most people on the spiritual path are a combination of the two. The more ego, the more defensiveness and aggressiveness, the less light and self-awareness. The less ego, the more devotional (the path of bhakti) and the more light. There are also other polarities and options too, such as the developed rational intellect in the service of spirituality, but this is not relevant to the topic at hand.
But sometimes, around both fake and genuine gurus, there will be individuals who are almost entirely of the second category. Which brings us to the present case study, Sathya Sai Baba loyalist Gerald "Joe" Moreno. At omne time I had posted a detailed analysis, but I am no longer interested in that sort of thing. With Sai Baba no longer alive, there also seems little point retaining them. So I deleted this particualr page, apart from these few paragraphs.
All of these pages grew out of my own experiences with Sai Baba, the Sai movement, and supporters and critics, a journey that was explained in "Anti Sai Baba Deceptions" (even the name of this essay reflects my own original pro-Sai Baba anti-critic bias), another page that I have deleted. By telling the full story, as a sort of microcosm of the larger drama of extremist devotees and cultists, I thought I could illustrate the way in which a ruthless advocate of an abusive guru apologist can obstruct genuine inquiry and concerns through a smokescreen of allegation and slander of critics. Incidentally this is exactly the same tactic that was used, for exactly the same reason, by Scientology against Cult critic Rick Ross (see Rick Ross Responds to his Critics). In the end thougfh it just meant being dragged down to their level
By cross-linking his numerous repetitive slander websites and blogs, Moreno achieved an undeserved prominence among Google search results - the same technique which the authors of porn sites and porn spam use to bootstrap themselves upwards. This has frightening implications far beyond abusive guru is and their fanatical followers, because it shows how a single obsessiobnal individual can serious bias a internet search engine. Since Google is an important public resource, one wonders how much other information it and other forums such as Wikipedia have been manipulated by unscrupulous individuals.
A final comment. Joe does not consider himself a devotee, does not consider Sai baba to be God, and objects to my use of the term. However, his certainty that all of Sathya Sai Baba's miracles are literally true, and hundreds if not thousands of man hours devoted to his ever multiplying websites and blogs would seem to show that he he is not being truthful to himself or to others. Indeed, the most extraordinary thing is why someone would devote so much time to defending someone they not only don't believe in and whose teachings they don't follow, but whose claims (of miracles, avatarhood, etc) go against everything they themselves believe in. Perhaps the answer is not to be found in Moreno's belief or lack of belief in Sai Baba, but in deep seated and perhaps deeply repressed psychological factors.
Saisathyasai - Gerald Joe Moreno's voluminous website. Other sites are the early (now no longer active?) Vishvarupa Com and the more recent Sai-Fi Net. Ina ddition there are numerous blogs under various aliases such as SSS108 and "the Equalizer" (gotta love that last one)
An Internet Bully. Joe (Gerald) Moreno and Gerald Joe Moreno: The Methodology of an Internet Propagandist - informative pages on Moreno, including useful lists of links, by Brian Steel
Sai Baba Exposed - by Conny Larsson - includes a large amount of material critical of Moreno, and refutation of some of Joe's claims. Defender of Sathya Sai Baba and his Organization - Gerald 'Joe' Moreno of Las Cruces, New Mexico includes lists of pages of Moreno's activities.
ON THE INTERNATIONAL SATHYA SAI ORGANISATION - A participant observational study and analysis of its structure and management by Robert C. Priddy - includes critical comments regarding Joe's actions, and their tacit approval by the International Sai Organisation
SERIOUS DEFAMATION ATTEMPT BY GERALD MORENO DEFEATED, reveals Moreno's modus operandi
The Sathya Sai Baba Cordon in Wikipedia - A critical view of Sathya Sai Baba involving details about Wikipedia, Kevin R. D. Shepherd, Gerald (Joe) Moreno, Robert Priddy, and FAIR.
A detailed report, including Moreno's Wikipedia activities and harassment, by Kevin R. D. Shepherd (Citizen Initiative).
Gerald 'Joe' Moreno - Sanjay's blog on Moreno. See also Sai Baba's Naughty Children - Gerald 'Joe' Moreno - Sanjay's review and critique of Moreno.
Indian Skeptic - a few useful observations
images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?