flaming is nothing new on the internet!) and follower of an abusive guru.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, Sai Baba loyalist Gerald "Joe" Moreno, who not only quite extreme in his public internet defamation , but also totally denies spirituality (except when it suits him), referring to it as "mumbo jumbo" (in an email to me dated 14th Jul 2006
he wrote "And please do not preach to me Alan with your spiritual mumbo jumbo"). He also reveals his materialistic stance in the way he repeatedly mocks ex-devotees' New Age and paranormal beliefs. Although Sai Baba's own claimed paranormal materialisation of objects from thin air - believed in implicately by all devotees (and i still feel there is a seed of truth in this; even The Mother agreed) seems to not be considered worthy of mention. Which raises another point in relation to the slanderous or ego-defensive devotee, their hypocrasy (see also 
Moreno's double standards on eating meat).
Even so, might such pages as I presenting here be themselves defamatory, so that I am actually guilty of what I accuse others of? Well, not really, for three reasons.
It is the sheer detail in Moreno's site that fools gullible people; certainly it fooled me, so that for quite a while I went along with him in believing these lies (full story here). Another reason is that I had unwittingly become caught up in a war between slanderous devotees/apologists and ex-devotees, on the side of the devotees. Not knowing why I was being attacked on one page by someone I didn't know, and being a naturally trusting person who assumes that other people are as honest and sincere as I am, I naturally (and foolishly) did not question Moreno's statements, and even got to the stage of badmouthing some people without really knowing them, because of the misinformation he had provided, and my own gullibility. Not all people are so naive, but I am more trusting than most. I hope therefore that in setting up these pages I can set the record straight, and help other sincere people who likewise do not know the full story about Sai Baba, the various allegations, the statements by ex-devotees and critics on the one hand and the stratergy of ego-defensive devotees and apologists on the other, from being fooled the way I was.
The busy reader who does not wish to wade through the whole "Morenian" drama is referred to my page on Moreno's manipulation of Google. This has frightening implications far beyond abusive guruis 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, and objects to my use of the term. I concede the point that due to his materialism and anti-spirituality he is not a devotee in a spiritual context. However, he is an obsessional advocate of and loyalist for Sai Baba, who clearly devotes hundreds if not thousands of man hours to his ever multiplying websites and blogs. So even if he is not a religious devotee, he still acts in teh manner of extreme cultic follower, in the form of his absolute and unquestioning allegience to Sai Baba. It is in that latter sense that I use the word here. 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. This is why I now believe 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, which I have speculated on in my case study of him.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?