Indian Guru tries to murder non-believer; fails.

[Mr. Hair]

When a famous tantric guru boasted on television that he could kill another man using only his mystical powers, most viewers either gasped in awe or merely nodded unquestioningly. Sanal Edamaruku’s response was different. “Go on then — kill me,” he said.

Mr Edamaruku had been invited to the same talk show as head of the indian rationalists’ association — the country’s self-appointed sceptic-in-chief. At first the holy man, Pandit Surender Sharma, was reluctant, but eventually he agreed to perform a series of rituals designed to kill Mr Edamaruku live on television. Millions tuned in as the channel cancelled scheduled programming to continue broadcasting the showdown, which can still be viewed on YouTube.

First, the master chanted mantras, then he sprinkled water on his intended victim. He brandished a knife, ruffled the sceptic’s hair and pressed his temples. But after several hours of similar antics, Mr Edamaruku was still very much alive — smiling for the cameras and taunting the furious holy man.

Rest-o'-the-article can be found here.

I stumbled across this news article earlier today, and I thought it was a fascinating example of how the impulse of secularisation adapts to wildly different cultures. Whereas here in the West*, the broad focus of religion** has tended to downplay the importance and role of contemporary physical miracles over the past couple of centuries, and so the arguments against and the apologetics for have in turn focused more on the spiritual and philosophical side of things. Whereas in India*** things seem to be the opposite, with the performance of individual holy men being of great importance, and so attempts to de-mystify and reverse engineer all things religious tends to be more direct and physical whilst still holding true to the general principles of rational enquiry and the importance of consistent logic.

(I guess the equivalent of this method in the US would involve Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris showing up during Mass with a couple of electron microscopes and an alarmingly suspicious amount of rubber tubing)

Essentially, my questions to the fine folks here basically boil down to, well, is Edamaruku right to believe that exposing and debunking the various holy men, gurus and televangelists will directly promote a "post-religious society", and "completely destroy" their ability to influence people? Does the debunking of the miraculous undermine the validity of religion as a whole, or is it simply a specific and limited response to a specific and limited aspect of religion, that not all happen to share? Should we treat the classical miracles recorded in various religious texts with the same scepticism, or give them greater reverence due to their historical weight, and (arguably) their greater cultural and mythical significance? (And if so, what is the cut-off point between 'classical' and 'contemporary'? Where do the established miracles in the Baha'i or the LDS faith**** stand between the two?) Is the faith that countless millions have in these holy men worthless if it's proven that they are based on deception and material gain?

I was also very interested in his comments about the ideal nature of a "post-religious society". Is such a goal desirable, or even feasible? If so, what exactly would it entail, and if not, is it still a worthwhile ambition to pursue? Would I be right in defining a "post-religious society" as one in which the entire influence of a religion on an individual is determined solely by that individual, as I figure that in the foreseeable future a clear majority of people will still find some value in identifying themselves as religious; or is that definition too flawed and partial?

Finally, I'd like to apologise if this post is too question-y and not, well, substance-y enough. I'm still trying to get my forum groove back on, baby, and any feedback is always good.

------

*At least, it's here from where I'm standing. Well, sitting. Okay, so it's more of a loaf, but a very upright and stiff loaf. It’s practically got mould on it.
**Outside of the fringes, of course. There's still quite a few nits lodged in there.
***According to a single apocryphal source on the matter, upon which I shall be basing my entire argument. Go internet debating!
****No bias or insult intended to the participants of either faith, these were just the only examples my post-Googlised mind could dredge up in a hurry.

 

[Riverwolf]

Excellent questions, Mr. Hair.

Essentially, my questions to the fine folks here basically boil down to, well, is Edamaruku right to believe that exposing and debunking the various holy men, gurus and televangelists will directly promote a "post-religious society", and "completely destroy" their ability to influence people?

Can't really say for sure. Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on how may religious people actually follow these people.

Does the debunking of the miraculous undermine the validity of religion as a whole, or is it simply a specific and limited response to a specific and limited aspect of religion, that not all happen to share?

The latter, because I'm religious, but I'm very skeptical of "miracles." For example, I'm a Hindu. However, I'm still very skeptical of the so-called "milk miracle," The Hindu Milk Miracle Video - Ganesh Drinking Milk - best documented paranormal phenomenon of modern times., as well as the "miracles" (and direct divinity) of Satya Sai Baba, a man who claims to be a direct incarnation of Siva-Sakti. (Basically a modern-day Hindu Jesus.)

Should we treat the classical miracles recorded in various religious texts with the same scepticism,

Definitely.

(And if so, what is the cut-off point between 'classical' and 'contemporary'? Where do the established miracles in the Baha'i or the LDS faith**** stand between the two?)

Can't really answer that; I'm not sure if there's a common consensus there.

Is the faith that countless millions have in these holy men worthless if it's proven that they are based on deception and material gain?

Depends on if these men do nothing but deceive and have material/social gain as their motivation. It also is important to remember that the deception has to be deliberate; a "holy" person who unknowingly teaches something that's incorrect is not a deceiver.

I was also very interested in his comments about the ideal nature of a "post-religious society". Is such a goal desirable, or even feasible? If so, what exactly would it entail, and if not, is it still a worthwhile ambition to pursue?

The latter question needs to be the first one asked in order for the former question to be adequately answered.

Would I be right in defining a "post-religious society" as one in which the entire influence of a religion on an individual is determined solely by that individual, as I figure that in the foreseeable future a clear majority of people will still find some value in identifying themselves as religious; or is that definition too flawed and partial?

Can't really say.

Finally, I'd like to apologise if this post is too question-y and not, well, substance-y enough. I'm still trying to get my forum groove back on, baby, and any feedback is always good.

Questions are never a waste of time.

 

[Andal]

Interesting story. This happens quite frequently in India because there are tons of fake tantrikas and gurus. I think it's actually a very good thing because it keeps people from getting abused and ripped off. I, however, do not believe that every holy man is a scam artist. There are some who do posses spiritual power but they don't show it off or anything like this. They tend to stay out of the media spot light.

I don't think this type of exposure will cause a post religious culture in India or elsewhere either. It hopefully helps to limit the number of fraud victims but there are also plenty of other "miracles" that can have a very secular explanation (ie: the televagelous' use of hypnosis in their healing ceremonies) but also have a religious explanation that is just as valid to the believer (ie: the Holy Spirit). Religious people will accept the religious explanation and the secular with accept the secular.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Mr. Hair]

The latter question needs to be the first one asked in order for the former question to be adequately answered.

That response honestly made me try to look inside my own brain for a split second. That takes skill.

 

[Baydwin]

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supposed gurus in India. My only experience of them is via television and the internet, but I do get the impression that many (although by no means all) self-appoint themselves as gurus as an ego trip. They surround themselves with followers, new recruits need to bring gifts and essentially grovel at the guru's feet to be allowed to sit in his presence.
I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing, or just a different way for people who would otherwise be poor nobodys to make a living.

I believe there is a whole movement, possibly the one the man in the OP belongs to, that goes around India exposing gurus for charletans, explaining their tricks and trying to help people see through their false wisdom.
Again, perhaps it's Indian culture, I don't know, but I'd automatically be suspicious of any individual who demands payment or gifts in exchange for spiritual guidance.

 

[Madhuri]

Lol, definitely be suspicious. There are so few genuine gurus and so many false people trying to take advantage. The point is that the real yogis are meditating in the Himalayas so they wouldn't be accessible for television and nor would they care.

 

[Andal]

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supposed gurus in India. My only experience of them is via television and the internet, but I do get the impression that many (although by no means all) self-appoint themselves as gurus as an ego trip. They surround themselves with followers, new recruits need to bring gifts and essentially grovel at the guru's feet to be allowed to sit in his presence.
I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing, or just a different way for people who would otherwise be poor nobodys to make a living.

I believe there is a whole movement, possibly the one the man in the OP belongs to, that goes around India exposing gurus for charletans, explaining their tricks and trying to help people see through their false wisdom.
Again, perhaps it's Indian culture, I don't know, but I'd automatically be suspicious of any individual who demands payment or gifts in exchange for spiritual guidance.

The gift and the feet thing is a matter of religious etiquette. The guru takes on the responsibility of your spiritual progress. The guru/ student relationship is not a casual thing. It's very serious (at least its supposed to be) When a student accepts a guru and a guru a student they are making a life long commitment to one and other. Therefore during diksa, the guru gives admittance into his or her circle and the student not having something of equal spiritual value to offer in exchange, gives a material gift. Plus it's a sign of respect. If this person is going to be with you, coaching you through the pitfalls of samsara then why not show one's gratitude. It's no different than tithing in the Western traditions.

The feet thing is not groveling. This is interesting though because it shows how an outsider views such behaviors. What it is, first and foremost is an act of respect to the guru and surrender to God. The feet while normally considered dirty, on a holy person or deity they are considered one of the most sacred parts of the body.

I do agree there are thousands of fakes out there. But I would also argue that there are plenty of authentic gurus. We just don't hear about them because they're not ripping people off or trying to be on tv.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Madhuri]

Oh I know, the television host is actually a more powerful mystic and renders the others' powers useless! I am an even stronger believer now

But seriously, it is odd that the guru would even accept such a challenge if he knew he couldn't do it. I have searched google and this guru's name only brings up results about the tv show incident. Is it possible that this whole thing was a sham to create scepticism about mysticism?

 

[Nepenthe]

I believe there is a whole movement, possibly the one the man in the OP belongs to, that goes around India exposing gurus for charletans, explaining their tricks and trying to help people see through their false wisdom.
Again, perhaps it's Indian culture, I don't know, but I'd automatically be suspicious of any individual who demands payment or gifts in exchange for spiritual guidance.

Yep, the Indian Rationalist Association. And B. Premanand was one of the great Indian skeptics- he was the Indian James Randi. Unfortunately he died last year.

 

[Baydwin]

The gift and the feet thing is a matter of religious etiquette. The guru takes on the responsibility of your spiritual progress. The guru/ student relationship is not a casual thing. It's very serious (at least its supposed to be) When a student accepts a guru and a guru a student they are making a life long commitment to one and other. Therefore during diksa, the guru gives admittance into his or her circle and the student not having something of equal spiritual value to offer in exchange, gives a material gift. Plus it's a sign of respect. If this person is going to be with you, coaching you through the pitfalls of samsara then why not show one's gratitude. It's no different than tithing in the Western traditions.

The feet thing is not groveling. This is interesting though because it shows how an outsider views such behaviors. What it is, first and foremost is an act of respect to the guru and surrender to God. The feet while normally considered dirty, on a holy person or deity they are considered one of the most sacred parts of the body.

Yeah, I figure it must be a cultural thing. As a Western I generally feel that a truly spiritual person would be humble, also that they would discourage adoration and shun material gifts. But then I also think tithing is wrong.

The point is that the real yogis are meditating in the Himalayas so they wouldn't be accessible for television and nor would they care.

:yes: That is my impression also.
I once saw a program where there were many, perhaps hundreds, of gurus all lined up in tents along a street, almost like market stalls. People would come along and try to get into a guru's group, although whether they were successful or not depended on the expensiveness of the gift they brought, and how willing they would be to serve the guru's every whim.

Whereas the gurus that removed themselves from society (in the same documentary) seemed far more spiritual people. They'd offer refreshments to people who visited them, despite having little or no personal possessions. They'd survive on donated food from pilgrims of course, but the relationship between guru and visitor seemed far more genuine to me.
Again though, this is just my personal perspective as an outsider.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Essentially, my questions to the fine folks here basically boil down to, well, is Edamaruku right to believe that exposing and debunking the various holy men, gurus and televangelists will directly promote a "post-religious society", and "completely destroy" their ability to influence people?

Their influence of saints and true mystics will not be reduced .Yes,his work will help to weed out the Bogus gurus.

Does the debunking of the miraculous undermine the validity of religion as a whole, or is it simply a specific and limited response to a specific and limited aspect of religion, that not all happen to share?

No,it does not .Unless the disciple ,makes effort to learn at least the basis of the religion (then he will know how the miracles work).See what one of the Genuine gurus has to say (by Sri Raghavendra Swami ):

"Always keep away from people who merely perform miracles without following the shastras(religious rules) and yet call themselves God or guru. I have performed miracles, and so have great persons like Srimadacharya(who was his guru). These are based on yoga siddhi(powers) and the shastras. There is no fraud or trickery at all. These miracles were performed only to show the greatness of God and the wonderful powers that one can attain with His grace. Right knowledge (jnana) is greater than any miracle. Without this no real miracle can take place. Any miracle performed without this right knowledge is only sorcery. No good will come to those who perform such miracles and also those who believe in them."

BTW..All the miracles work under time -space limitation,for any sincere seeker ,the miracles would be an obstacle.

Should we treat the classical miracles recorded in various religious texts with the same scepticism, or give them greater reverence due to their historical weight, and (arguably) their greater cultural and mythical significance?

Yes with scepticism....IMHO,we should be skceptic of materialist doctrines too.

(And if so, what is the cut-off point between 'classical' and 'contemporary'?

I don't think there is any cutoff.

Where do the established miracles in the Baha'i or the LDS faith**** stand between the two?)

These miracles can be done any proficient mystic ,be it hindu,christian ,sufi or whatever.In fact,any true guru will not have any desire to do those miracles and even if they do it is only for the good of others.

Is the faith that countless millions have in these holy men worthless if it's proven that they are based on deception and material gain?

Truth is self-evident..You don't need to believe in truth.Blind faith is of no use.

I was also very interested in his comments about the ideal nature of a "post-religious society". Is such a goal desirable, or even feasible? If so, what exactly would it entail, and if not, is it still a worthwhile ambition to pursue? Would I be right in defining a "post-religious society" as one in which the entire influence of a religion on an individual is determined solely by that individual, as I figure that in the foreseeable future a clear majority of people will still find some value in identifying themselves as reliious; or is that definition too flawed and partial?

It depends on the individual attitude,hence prediction on "post-religious society" cannot be accurate.

 

[Andal]

Yeah, I figure it must be a cultural thing. As a Western I generally feel that a truly spiritual person would be humble, also that they would discourage adoration and shun material gifts. But then I also think tithing is wrong.

Gurus generally are humble (at least genuine ones) They don't accept the gift because they want material things, they do so because of the connotation of gift giving in Hindu culture. It is unbelievably insulting to refuse a gift or food when offered. So the guru is going to follow this cultural norm. Also if you look at it from the perspective of karma, to give a gift to a holy person has good karmic benefits. Don't forget too that at one time that guru also gave gifts to their guru.

I used to agree with you too about the tithing. I think maybe I've become more disillusioned as I get older. Religious organizations need money to continue to provide services. Nothing is really free in the material world (even if it should be, which I agree spiritual things should be) Tithing and gift giving (in monetary form ) ensure the continuation of those services.

It's important to remember too that any reputable guru or organization is not going to demand a gift or tithe of a certain value. It's generally what can be given by the person.