Tempest in a Blogging Teapot

A little more than a month ago I wrote an article where I examined the question of the possible evolutionary nature of human religiosity.  Specifically, my question was addressed to why seemingly rational people trained in the rigorous scientific process would turn to religion, spirituality or superstition.

Within this larger academic question, I cited the case of an ex-student of mine, P.G., a man trained in the sciences who turned to a life of spiritual quest.  P.G. is now a teacher in the yogic tradition with some following.  Having known this person right up to the stage of his life when he decided to follow a new trajectory in his belief system, I decided to use his example to illustrate my puzzlement.  Also, because P.G. is now a public persona with several references to his teachings, philosophy, public appearances etc. easily accessible on the World Wide Web, I felt comfortable in bringing him up.  Had he been a private person, I would not have used his case in my article.

To my astonishment and considerable annoyance, in the last couple or three weeks, I started receiving e-mails from persons claiming to be associated with P.G. in his current incarnation, in which they raise objections to my public blog post about him. Although one of them claimed hearsay (wrong!), the emails don't actually challenge my assertions about P.G.'s earlier life. The correspondents are just not happy that I publicly discussed the details of his "pre-monastic" days when I was familiar with him. In their emails, P.G.'s devotees /associates have requested me to "withdraw" my comments without really giving me any solid grounds as to why I should do that except to suggest vaguely that my post has in some way "harmed" P.G. and his spiritual enterprise.

Since these emails came to me unsolicited with no implicit understanding of confidentiality, without naming names, I will quote from them some relevant lines. One e-mail message contained the following.

"The postings on the blog have now created much confusion and led to mundane discussion and gossip. The writings about his life after his secondary school until his monkhood are not based on direct information (not coming from Swamiji himself) and they are amounting to slander. Since you wrote that you affectionately remember him as a youth, I hope that you will honour my request to please withdraw your comments and the picture of Swamiji from that posting."

I read the above message as a veiled attempt at intimidation by a devotee who is unhappy with my narrative perhaps because in some way it contradicts the image of the guru which he/she wants to promote. If the devotees are confused and are indulging in gossip, shouldn't they ask their spiritual leader to clear up the confusion instead of haranguing me?  And how strong is their faith and conviction that they were shaken by some casual statements of a total stranger?  I decided to ignore this attempt at thought policing and let the matter stand where it is.

Then I received a rambling email purporting to be from the "legal counsel" of P.G. Interestingly enough, this one makes no reference to slander or asks any questions about the veracity of what I have described in my article. There is however some earnest attempt to "explain" my observations in light of P.G.'s enlightenment and subsequent monkhood.  The main thrust of the message is that my blog post may have "hurt" the guru personally and his relationship with his sponsors.  Again, there is an appeal to remove references to P.G.'s current life and spiritual / business pursuits. I will quote some relevant material here from this email.

"Apparently you were a good influence on his life, inspiring him to excel in the sciences. .... These personal comments about him have been very hurtful and have created unnecessary confusion and precipitated several inquiries to the charitable non-profit organization that sponsors him.  I am not sure what your motivation was in posting these personal remarks about him on the internet, but I’m sure that you have no interest or reason to criticize, discredit, or ridicule him personally or to damage his reputation.  Even though you may not understand or agree with his spiritual vows and decision to contribute towards society spiritually and culturally rather than materially, out of civility, courtesy, respect for him and your past caring teacher-student relationship with him, again I respectfully request you to remove these unnecessary personal comments about him from the internet." 

My initial response to the above message was irritation at being again told what I should or should not put in my private blog site which I did not invite any of P.G.'s devotees to read.  However, on further reflection I felt bad about inadvertently exposing P.G. to scrutiny that he did not expect and I myself did not intend. Very reluctantly, I have decided to modify the original post in question without making any changes to the objective content of my article.  P.G.'s story (factual and verifiable) and the ensuing comments still remain in the original post. The modification I have made will essentially "disassociate" the P.G. I knew in the past from his current reincarnation, the Swami.  No one reading the original article will be able to make the connection between P.G., my ex-student and P.G., the Guru.

Indeed, I had no intention of harming P.G. I suspect that if he has been hurt by my post, it is not because of "slander" but because of some "truth" that was not known to his devotees before my article became available on the internet. My motivation in writing the orginal post on evolutionary pressures and religion was an academic one. I have on several previous occasions alluded to religion  and rationality on the blog which have some times generated spirited and civil discussions.  In this particular post, I decided for the first time to break my own rule of avoiding personal anecdotes involving other people's lives in order to illustrate a point, even though this person is now a public figure. Also, while I have severe disagreements with P.G.'s philosophy and his chosen path of serving society, I did not write his story in order to compromise him personally or professionally.  My intention in writing it was an attempt to understand the workings of a religious mind;  using P.G.'s  story was incidental. As I have said before, I still recall the young P.G. with affection for his bright and earnest ways.  I realize full well that I am at liberty to state facts and opinions in my blog post about my side of a multi-faceted story. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to take a stand on this matter on the basis of the First Amendment and freedom of speech against P.G's acolytes.  However, I am not on a crusade against P.G. and the reason for my decision is my own queasiness about P.G. and me.  I have "cleaned" up the blog post in a way that anonymizes the post and does not lead from the P.G. of my past, to P.G., the  publicly known spiritual leader of today.

As my regular readers know well, I have been writing my candid opinions on political and religious matters for some time on this blog. Never have I seen the depth of emotions (and back room machinations, as Dean points out) that my post on P.G. seems to have stirred up in some. It is baffling that an innocuous and inconsequential blog post would raise so much concern.   I will also note that in their message to me, P.G.'s associates acknowledged that my world view differs from theirs.  Yet, they took it upon themselves to explain to me the details of P.G.'s philosophical and spiritual stance and numerous accolades and accomplishments. There was even an attempt at educating me on the validity of his teachings which reconcile science and the vedic tradition.  It was as if even after knowing my lack of religious convictions, they wanted me to see P.G. as they see him - a godly man. That I wrote about P.G. purely from a human interest angle - as a "person of interest" seems difficult for them to accept.

As I said in my original article about P.G. and me, "We inhabit different worlds."  But across those worlds, courtesy is an acceptable currency of discourse. But trying to "convert or convince" by preaching is not.  My own readers are not particularly interested in P.G. or his activities. They have moved on from the more than month old post to other matters that interest us here. 

Only two (and a reluctant third) people have agreed with my decision to "modify" the post.  Others, including perhaps my co-bloggers, may disapprove. They think that P.G.'s religious "thought police" who want only P.G.'s mythology out in the public sphere in the interest of their spiritual / business purposes will benefit from the modification.   Be assured that this was not the reason for my decision.  The modification is not so much for the benefit of P.G.'s own or his adherent's comfort level but that of my own. I have explained why.  But I welcome you to take me apart in the comments section. :-)   

Comments

[Sujatha]

No brickbats from me, Ruchira. I think you have explained the whole issue well and applied the 'justice tempered by mercy' required by this situation. It remains to your ex-student to decide how he will handle this situation with his adherents who may have read the original post, now that your post no longer gets linked on googling his monastic name.

[A long-time reader]

Religious cults can be fanatical, particularly when their financial interests are at stake. You should be prepared to take legal action if needed, and if the “haranguing” escalates to intimidation, let the FBI know. Your writings bring a fresh perspective to what is often a stale debate, and don’t let this incident stop you from speaking your mind.

[RB]

I feel strange. Why are people afraid of reality? Religion is wonderful, so is truth. A true practitioner of any faith, will not run away from reality. A lotus blooms in the muck - why appreciate only the lotus? Both the flower and the muck are made of the same cosmic dust as are the planets and all astronomical bodies in the universe and us. Why do we forget such a simple reality? Remember the anecdote of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and his devotee who met him after several years. On being asked the devotee said that he was busy learning Hatha Yoga and that he could now walk on water. Ramakrishna said, that instead of wasting so many years learning how to walk on water, he could have crossed the river simply by giving the boatman some money. Isn't it great?

I am really sorry Ruchira Di - for all the brickbats from devotees and "legal representatives and sponsors" of SV. Since it was I who provided the information of a school friend, without realising the consequences.

Let the BIG GUYS do what they want, manage their lawyers, and sponsors and devotees. Let us continue to cross the river using the boat.

Cheers to one and all.
RB

[Ruchira Paul]

Nothing to be sorry about, RB. I had asked you a question and you answered with some verifiable facts. The rest is my first hand knowledge, much of it from P.G. himself. That this factual account on my blog would make some people so uncomfortable (for reasons that you and I do not understand) was not something any of us expected.

[razib]

the problem that i have with religionists is that their imbue their silly beliefs with ontological import. i have silly beliefs too, but i don't ground my sense of being in those beliefs. so you see here a post on the internet precipitates much soul-searching and emotional anguish because that post intersects with some silly beliefs. that's the nature of the world we are in....