The Führer said: "OBEY!"

Taken from Christian's blog in Europe: Analyse de la SRCMtm in Item Xl (towards the bottom of the page), and translated by 4d-don using "Google translate".

Christian is a Phd in psychology and is a psycho-linguist. He was an abhyasis for 18 years and left the SRCM a few years ago and took a short journey in the ISRC of Narayana, Dr. Varadachari's son's Group.


Chari's words are in "purple italics"
Author and owner of this blog's (4d-don) comments are in "red italics"


Obersturmbannführer said: "Obey!"

In their toxic propaganda, the members of the Sri Rajagopal Chari Mission (tm) have placed on-line, free for viewing and downloading, a few books that expose the heart of Chari's doctrine.

This may seem generous on their part, but remember that not so long ago, SRCMtm did not have any works on-line for free. Any "product" was the subject of commerce, and we talked on the blogs of the contrast with the more healthy approach of the ISRC, which has always placed its material free on-line for the benefit of the students, whether they be members or outside the organization. Such a contrast was indeed indicative of the materialistic and anti-spiritual mood that reigned and still reigns at the SRCMtm.

First point, therefore, the free availability on the net is a response to our criticism so as to save face vis-a-vis the position of their competition - it is at best, nothing more than a marketing strategy. This is certainly not the spontaneous expression of generosity of spirit, contrary to what some in the SRCMtm claim.

A second point concerning the content must be raised: Chari's doctrine is an aberrant development of the teachings of Babuji, which should no longer be called Sahaj Marg, as it is based on principles completely contrary to the initial teachings. Note for example the trend towards control, domination and power, where Babuji established respect, service and love, "naturally".

From a psychological point of view, the elements contained in these texts are pure poisons, which are from a mental pathology, rather than holiness. Negative notions are mixed with positive notions to be acceptable, but they remain contaminants.

We chose to analyze the chapter "Obedience" (Series 4) to give you an overview of the doctrinal drift established by Chari, with some excerpts below. The entire text can be found at: http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/publications/salfeatures/series4/obedience/obedience.html

These extracts show how, whereas Babuji gently guided and respected - because it is not possible to do otherwise - due to the weaknesses and flaws of human nature, Chari passes to force that is apt to destroy spirituality.

Chari teaches submission to the supreme, ie the master, Chari himself, through which could the services of the divine could be assure to the creatures as to the creator. At the same time, he refuses to submit to certain aspects of creation, which need to be addressed with a attitude of subtlety, revealing his involvement in a political project, rather than in a divine plan.

The logical consequence which he faces is an impasse, in which he has no other option but to end his reign as best he can, by imposing an artificial and totalitarian control over some aspects of nature that he does not control. In the texts discussed here, for example he choses to force abhyasis by manipulative processes, to absolute obedience.

He can talk of love in his message to make it acceptable - a dance of love - the direction he gives to his followers remains contrary to that of expansion and enlightenment of the disciple, which have always been the path in the teachings of the saints.

He justifies this approach by doctrinal arguments presented in the books of propaganda of the Sahaj Marg Research and Teaching Institute (SMRTI), a case full of contradictions. We are not surprised that he asks that the abhyasis not think, in the case that with a time of reflection, they would realize the deception.

So the best disciple is the one who is most obedient. The highest disciple is the one who is absolutely obedient - not highest in spiritual evolution, which after all is always the gift of the Master. In Sahaj Marg, without obedience can be gained nothing, absolutely nothing. You may be the greatest tapasvi (one who does penance), twenty-four hours meditation, putting yourself like a piece of cloth at His door. I dare say you will not achieve anything.

Although there is no connection between obedience and spiritual development - which is what Chari said here - the disciple should be obedient to be a good disciple. Let us put things in perspective: Why does anyone come to see a spiritual master, what do they seek ? God or obedience? Does one atttain the divine by obeying a madman? What did Babuji say about such gurus? (one is better off without a guru at all, than with a bad Guru)

Obedience must be total
Do not think, just obey

If you think at all, you will necessarily get out of the clutches of the swindler, and he needs obedient slaves to run his business.

If anything will guarantee total success in spiritual life, it is obedience, because obedience means that we do not think of what he asks us to do, we do it.

Obedience means doing when He says "do", stopping when he says "Stop."

If you think about what the Master says, you are already on the road to destruction. You are not to think, because if you think, you are setting your thinking process against His. Babuji never thought for himself, his thinking was suspended when he had been to his master. He has written about it clearly. He said, "when I went to my Master for the first time, I never looked at anybody else." Not for me to think. Then what? Not for me to think, but only to obey.

Whereas in the first passage, Chari argued that obedience has nothing to do with spirituality, he says the opposite here. Chari also suggests that we should not think at all. According to him, to have one's own thought, is necessarily to have a thought that is against that of the master. But the thought of the master and the disciple may well be consistent and mutually reinforcing, particularly when the Master has correctly understood and correctly taught the teaching to the disciple and when this instruction is in line with reality.

Of course this is not the case if the teacher is a scam artist, in which case he must expect that the thought of his followers are opposed to his. Chari argues that there is danger of destruction if we think. He does not specify what he means, but knowing the context, one can imagine that by destruction, he is thinking of the destruction of the self. For example, the spiritual life of the disciple could be destroyed if he were to think. Perhaps thinking would lead to doubt, and doubt would lead one to seek for something else, hence to a movement to restore the disciple on the path to the Divine, and to extricate his/herself from the "spider-web" of Chari, which would be bad for the business of the latter.

Chari gives the example of Babuji, the supreme authority from which he derives his own without being embarrassed, to justify what he has to say and to have it be accepted. However, he lies. I asked abhyasis who knew Babuji in the 1970's, if things were happening as Chari relates them here. They denied it and explained how Babuji discussed everything with his associates. Babuji often asked for the opinions of the abhyasis, and if he proposed something, it sometimes happened that his associates argued against it, if they were in disagreement. Babuji then sat in meditation for the opinion of his master, and it sometimes happened that he came back with the confirmation of Lalaji ... that the abhyasi that was correct and that Babuji was wrong.

Babuji was never presented as a tyrant and giving orders, claiming absolute knowledge which everyone should abide completely, as Chari today. Babuji asked instead that his associates think and do their own research, to develop their discriminative intelligence and he enriched his own reflection with these interactions. His supreme reference was Lalaji, and not himself.

There is only one freedom and that is freedom to obey the Master.

It is a FREE affirmation, right?

When we are with the Master, we should not have desires - not even for a sitting, not even for Upadesam (advice), not even for questions and answers, nothing! We should be like the dog, which is just happy enough to lie down at the feet of the Master and look at his face!

Robotic-Abhyasis, Obedient dogs . 1984, Georges Orwell.

Abhyasis who claim to be devoted must realize that obedience is the first sign of devotion and where obedience is lacking, devotion can not be there.

Here Chari begins to manipulate his readers by using the leverage of devotion, a concept that gets good press to get people to obey. He said in essence: you claim to be devout, but if you are not blindly obeying you're not devout, hoping that this will get the devotees to submit.

It becomes the duty of preceptors to explain to abhyasis that, without obedience of the Master's instructions, spirituality becomes something which can not be practiced by such persons.

Here we are in a litigious and mechanical approach, not living in the approach of spirituality where the abhyasi would naturally be lead to implement the instructions of the teacher - not to obey - if he recognized that these are sensible are beneficial and help him achieve what he seeks or for which it has consulted the teacher or preceptor. Is it a natural path or a path that forces people?

Obedience, in the beginning, is a very difficult thing because it means subservience of our ego, our subjugation of ego, to a superior person. Therefore the ego rebels. Disobedience always comes by a rebellion of the ego. But people forget that when you are obedient you have no more responsibility for anything that you do, or do not do, under his order. (...) It is the liberation from the world. (...) This is liberation while I am alive - I assume. And I'm convinced in myself that this is Jivan mukti.

One might have doubted that when Chari speaks of the Master, he refers to a human being. Some dishonest people of the SRCMtm misuse that confusion between God and the Master, caused by the use of the same word for both, the word "Master." In this misuse towards which their endoctrination pushes them, they justify the delusional rantings of their idol. It is clear here that with the word "Master", Chari refers to a human being as he speaks of a "superior person". Babuji conceived of the living Master as a servant, not a "superior person". All Sufis consider God as the sole Master, and all the living teachers as His servants.

Is it possible that he has fallen so low that now Master Chari has become a "superior person"? Chari also speaks of submission of the ego. This conception reveals that he conceives of his relationship to the abhyasis as a power relationship, a relationship of domination, a power relationship between two human beings, not as a fraternal relationship based on spiritual values in which the ego does not matter. Chari then claims that if you're obedient you will not have any responsibility and will be released. If we consider the case of Babuji, who was totally obedient to his master Lalaji, we see that obedience was not free of heavy responsibilities, on the contrary.

Finally, if being obedient gave spiritual liberation, why did Chari say in the first exerpt presented above, that obedience makes one a good disciple but does not bring anything spiritually? When one lies, one always ends up contradicting oneself.

Loving Him, obeying Him, following Him, our responsibility does not exist anymore to anybody.

True, his goal is to make irresponsible fools of abhyasis. This is not spirituality, it is the opposite.

I always judge an abhyasi's love for the Master by the degree of obedience that is visible to us.

A sad confession: he needs to measure what is visible, thus materialized or utilitarian, the love of an abhyasi for himself. Do you not think that if an abyhasi loved him, a spiritual person that he is, his soul would feel it and he would not need to judge by conspicuous outward events? Here Chari uses manipulation. He said in substance: obey ostensibly so that I noticed, because then I know you love me. He said this to people indoctrinated whose dream is to receive some recognition of their idol, you can imagine perfectly what consequences this will produce.

When we are loving the Master and we are remembering him all the time, we use his powers

After titillating devotion and love among his brainwashed groupies, Chari plays another chord of the human soul, the lure for power. There would be an automatic transfer of the powers of the master in the dedicated, loving, obedient, abhyasi, therefore, which should finally convince you that you have everything to gain by blindly obeying the person above.

Obedience is the first law of spirituality. I place it above love because true obedience comes only with love

However, obedience is better than love because it follows it, and thus represents the next step in the process. In your opinion, what is more important, that the sun produces heat and energy or the life that is developing thanks to this energy?

It is not easy to love, but it's easy to obey. And it is my experience that if you just obey and go on and on, it is easier than trying to love somebody. So my advice to all abhyasis is, please become obedient

We therefore have the obedience that grows from love on the one hand, and on the other hand, the obedience which can exist without love, and apparently, it is a better practice because it is easier than love. Therefore, obedience may not arise from love?

As we grow more and more obedient, it shows an increasing love for the Master. (...) And when we absolutely love Him, we obey Him absolutely.

Mental Mishmash à la Chari, the more we obey the more we love? Finally NO! Sadomasochism, it also exists. And it has nothing to do with spirituality.

When we obey Him, we work for Him, He has to love us. It is not important whether I love the Master or not. The important thing is whether my Master loves me.

The association obedience-love is the best choice he could do to manipulate an audience characterized by emotional deprivation on the human level, and so indoctrinated to worship the guru as an idol. Pure manipulation.

We have to learn to love the Master. And when we obey Him without question, then we find the unfoldment of His miraculous powers.

And again the aberrant couple of obedience-power. There are only advantages to obey: We love and we will have his powers. However, obedience, is to submit, and therefore, is to lose any power. In addition, remember that Babuji said about the spiritual powers: that the master prevents their development. If it prevents development on the one hand, this does not give it to you with another, even if you submit. And first of all what powers? The only people that are important, they are making other human beings loving and spiritual, is not it?

It is love which is beyond even praised effort, even beyond everything else, because love for the Master alone can give you obedience to the Master. One who loves, obeys.

Obedience, remember what he said 5 passages above, is better than love because it is derived from it. Here, love is better than any (so that means "obedience") because it only makes you obedient. Imagine that you love someone and you realize that he/she is on the wrong path, do you obey him/her or not, do you disobey him/her with the idea of helping him/her? The association between love and obedience is caricatured and distorted, it is used solely for the purpose of manipulating abhyasis to produce the desired result: that they obey. Chari, in another speech, did he not say that love does not ask (need)?

Obedience is the fundamental virtue in the disciple, because Babuji has said, "One who is disciplined is a disciple" means obedience and discipline.

Discipline means obedience. The meaning of discipline is: the action of learning, principles, rules of life. A disciple is someone who learns new principles and rules of life, not an obedient slave.

There will be many people who will equate obedience with loss of freedom. It does not mean anything like that. I can not possibly obey unless I am free to obey. So only a free man obeys.

A man may be compelled to obey, so his assertion is questionable, because a free man will not obey others but himself or principles. But can we then say that even if he obeys, he is still a free man?

A prisoner has no choice. Can a prisoner disobey? He will be shot. So there, obedience is not obedience.

Yes, it's obedience, as he has a choice between living (obey) or die (disobey) and he chooses the first option. Extreme, but still obedience - if the definition he gave for obedience is correct. His examples are "silly" and his arguments are flawed. But for people who do not thnkn and for whom Chari is God, it is the gospel-truth.

Obedience means obeying (...) I am one, whom I consider myself higher than] (...)

Again this notion of pathological relationship of dominant-dominated. This is spirituality? Or love?

When we accept Him and obey Him and work for Him and become like Him, He is happy.

Another manipulative touch that was missing previously: making the idol happy. Could a devotee do without it?

And love for Master must be revealed in your love for all.

Let us call upon Chari to show us his love for me or other "dissidents" which he treated as dogs. This (inaccurate racial slur removed by blog owner) -salesman, is a swindler who, when subjected to real tests, demonstrates his usurping nature.

All obedience is for the sake of the self. Here also, it is for your sake that you are obedient.

It seems, in conclusion, that obedience is more for the good of the one whom we must obey, for himself, right?