stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

NORMAN EINSTEIN 223
[W]hat I really got off on was the fact that I was now being
treated in the way I would treat Sheela.
One could substitute the name of any guru-figure or foolish
pandit for the one-time respected administrator Sheela in that,
and it would apply just as well.
Of course, in any such context, you could not then speak out
properly against even the radical shortcomings in your own onetime
heroes, as that would then license your followers to do the
same to you. That is, the only way to “teach” others how to treat
you with proper respect would be to continue to speak publicly
with exaggerated regard for the idols. That must continue even
long after it was obvious that they were complete screw-ups, and
even if one could, when pressed, admit to the latter when safe from
the public eye.
Thus:
In private correspondence with me (and in person), Wilber
has admitted that “Da is a fuck-up” (his words, not mine)
(Lane, 1996).
Of course, it may also be that Wilber is simply so desperate for
his hero Adi Da’s approval, love and attention that he will (publicly)
do everything in his power to retain that. But that would be
even less flattering than the above explanation, as an explicitly
immature, dependent stance.
Still, as Stephen Butterfield (1994) noted:
In the guru/disciple relationship, [the] self-conscious longing
for acceptance, regarded as a form of devotion, operates to
intimidate the student into deference.
And then, from the deferential Wilber (1998a):
I affirm my own love and devotion to the living Sat-Guru
[i.e., Adi Da].... I send ... a deep bow to Master Adi Da.
Wilber himself, interestingly, had elsewhere and earlier (in
Anthony, et al., 1987) mocked followers who view their spiritual
leader as being a “perfect master”:
[H]ow great the guru is; in fact, how great I must be to be
among the chosen. It is an extremely narcissistic position.