Hi all,
I would like to further the discussions on satire here posted by David http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=962 , and bring out some other issues which I wish to say for a long time.
Jim wrote:
nearoanoke wrote:
I like Jim’s post, too. Very insightful. Spiritual things like that have opened my mind for a good many months. That part I don’t have much to offer, only to learn. But I am for the idea of harming others for a short while sometimes, in order to minimize harm in the long run.
Before I express what I said, I realize that satire or even revealing sad facts is not a wise or appropriate thing for a guru (or anyone promoting certain system of spiritual practices) to do. So I understand (and appreciate) Yogani’s effort trying not to touch upon any sensitive issues even when he has something in his mind. If he uses satire or reveal too much, there is an opportunity of having a disaster some time in the future. And this risk alone outweight any positive effects of that satire.
For us, I can¡¦t judge whether satire is beneficial on the whole. (see below, however) However, (or at least a good many of us) it’s quite helpful to go to the intelletual level (at least occasionally), and makes various judgements on what kind of actions will do least harm in the long run. And satire can be very helpful in revealing how stupid, how destructive certain actions/religion can be.
Revealing certain facts about a religion/organization is needed, even when this means harming others for a while. So a rational, intellectual discussions should go first (before you let go). For many that doesn¡¦t work, satire can then be very helpful.
1. We need to know ¡§what happened¡¨ about an organization----why it¡¦s much safer to be rational and intellectual before we let go
Allow me to take some extreme examples. (hope that won’t harm anyone here!!) Look at the Islamic extremist. Subjectively they have every bit of the spiritual experience, or “Bhati” as you guys here. May be even stronger. Every bit of their great efforts is a radiance of their (very special kind of) love towards God, towards (their) higher goal. I¡¦m NOT saying that satire against them is useful in this case. It could only be worse. I am emphasizing the danger of following your Bhati and “spirituality” only, and be too ignorant about objective truth, about “yes and no”.
Some religions/organizations seems very spiritual from the inside. But very destructive to the world. These religions are solving problems and providing a spiritual path for the followers—they solve problems which they CREATED for the followers, and PROVIDE a definite path which the followers have not much choice, so that they feel secure. And followers, therefore, adhere to the organizations firmly. Even firmer if you tell how radical their beliefs are, because for them, what you said confirm what their ¡§guru¡¨ teach: that the world is devilish, and is against the organization. ¡§Only in the organization can you find peace¡¨, they think.
So to help those who have not (yet) fall into the trap of such ¡§destructive subjectively spiritual path¡¨, rational discussions go first. But to talk to those who are already in it, usually rational discussions doesn¡¦t work well.
2. how satire can help (under certain situations) when rational discussions doesn¡¦t work
Why, when David asked "what did Britian do that so disappointed His Holiness? " or use the term “lotus feet” of Maharishi Mahish Yogi, we would instantly feel that he is not taking these terms literally? What if he’s talking about “Buddha” instead of “Mahish” here? I’ll bet then most of us will take it literally. Yes?
I can only guess by common sense: (correct me if rhetoric concerns are more crucial here, my English is bad) There are indeed many dirty and funny FACTS about Mr. Mahish, while Buddha is too spiritual for us to comment on. We have the right to know and learn as much as possible about what they did, before we decide whether to follow their path. This is the meaning of ¡§open-source¡¨, and it¡¦s great, I suppose? We don¡¦t need to defense for Buddha: most people who attack Buddha will be attacking himself, and if there¡¦s an occasional fault of Buddha, we learn even more from it.
So as I see it, the reason why satire on (say) Mahish hurt his followers is that: there some facts they know but is reluctant to accept. Even though they know deep in their hearts the problems, they prefer to follow blindly, without criticizing/thinking. This tendency is dangerous. The habit itself could bring unnecessary misery, especially if Mahish turns to be an extremist. Satire forces us to think. To be alert all the time, and avoid the danger of becoming ¡§subjectively spiritual¡¨.
Alvin
P.S. I myself was in a radical Christian Church since I was born (until I was 17). While it is ultimately a long-term rational thinking which took me out of this miserable small world, satire played a great role in initiating me and forcing me to think. Who would be hurted if we are endowed with truth? And if we are not, let it hurts!!
. As long as we make sure that we are just putting forward our point logically and in a convincing manner without feeling good about it, it wont cause any problems.