You're this DattaSwami?

[Veritas Aequitas]

DattaSwami, You're this?
https://www.facebook.com/universal.spirituality1/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A con man.

data smarmy.jpg

[Walker]

That’s a pretty ham-handed con.
Looks more like unsophisticated self-promotion.
Ever watch any Bollywood movies? They’re also ham-handed.

[Iwannaplato]

DattaSwami, You're this?
https://www.facebook.com/universal.spirituality1/

Whoever it is, is using texts, some going back a couple of decades from the website of that Guru and that organization. I would guess it is the guru himself, but he could easily have one of his devotees doing it. It could also be someone not connected to him.

But many of his texts are written by that guru. He's cutting and pasting a number of thread starts.

[Iwannaplato]

That’s a pretty ham-handed con.
Looks more like unsophisticated self-promotion.
Ever watch any Bollywood movies? They’re also ham-handed.

Sure, it's a crosscultural situation.
The most humorous, in a crosscultural situation, is this one, where he presents himself as all these holy figures or experts.

[Walker]

That’s a pretty ham-handed con.
Looks more like unsophisticated self-promotion.
Ever watch any Bollywood movies? They’re also ham-handed.

Sure, it's a crosscultural situation.
The most humorous, in a crosscultural situation, is this one, where he presents himself as all these holy figures or experts.
https://www.universal-spirituality.org/ ... rse74m.jpg

Interesting.

What I see there in the illustration is the intent to communicate the commonality of divinity that threads through all of the religions represented.

The contradictions betwixt religions is found in the interpretation of the particulars. Dattaswami's punditry so far has centered around reconciling differences that cause conflict between modes of thought, and presentation. He does this by offering thoughts he has thought in the past. Other folks might say, been there done that, and think that says something.

The key to understanding all the identities he presents is the concept of identity as a role, which he has explained. The mother, the father, the son, the pundit, the avatars, the gods, the consorts, and so on. An extension of this is the Indian caste system, the old ways which are not so unorthodox when compared to the more informal class structures of the West that are based on schooling and money. For instance, as in the US the rulers come from the Ivy League schools, so you end up with family political dynasties. The verkers come from the state schools.

Dattaswami using old personal insights and writings is perfectly understandable. As he mentioned, India's move towards science and tech has likely hollowed the energy out of spirituality and turned it into rote rituals of religion, so he's making offerings to the West on the level of Jnani, which is most appropriate to the intellectualism of a philosophy forum.

His offerings need not be accepted. The content speaks for itself, to be accepted or rejected, or as a portal to find out more.

There is the matter of the flood, though. Maybe he just wants to get it all out there while he can, and he's doing it with relevance to what he perceives is going on in this realm, not necessarily in response to any particular posting. This is because he's focused on roles.

An avatar? Did he say that, or is that inferred from the illustration?

[Iwannaplato]

What I see there in the illustration is the intent to communicate the commonality of divinity that threads through all of the religions represented.ote]

Yes, with his face, that's the amusing part, in the role of A leader in thoee religions or THE leader in those religions.

The contradictions betwixt religions is found in the interpretation of the particulars.

Some of them core. Buddhism and Islam and Christianity are not all really the same. And the Koran is quite specific about this and what happens to someone who changes to one of the other religions. The Koran that DS has said is the word of God.

His offerings need not be accepted.

You really don't need to tell me (or us presumably).

The content speaks for itself.

He could introduce himself and provide a link to his website.

There is the matter of the flood, though. Maybe it he just wants to get it all out there while he can, and he's doing it with relevance to what he perceives is going on in this realm, not necessarily in response to any particular posting. This is because he's focused on roles.

It's good you can read his mind so well.

An avatar? Did he say that, or is that inferred from the illustration?

Oh, he goes much further than that on his website. But you just go on making up stuff based on less information.

[Walker]

I was never a big fan of the line by line response. Too easy for the responder to miss the gist by being dismissive and cute; and for me, too much invitation to get cute in response to the petty comments of the responder.

Early on you mentioned a teenager, or sounding like one, or acting like one. There's lots of ways to do that.

Consider the evidence, not how you think someone should behave. Old pix apparently hand-retouched with dye not even up to Bollywood expectations. Transcriptions of old data. Reluctance to personally engage. Perhaps a descendent transmits dattaswami qualities into the digital matrix.

Logical deduction is not the same as making stuff up, Detective Sherlock.

Neither is intellectually exploring possibilities based on evidence.

[Iwannaplato]

I was never a big fan of the line by line response. Too easy for the responder to miss the gist by being dismissive and cute; and for me, too much invitation to get cute in response to the petty comments of the responder.

Fine, don't use them. Otherwise this is just your judgments at a generalized level.

Consider the evidence, not how you think someone should behave. Old pix apparently hand-retouched with dye not even up to Bollywood expectations. Transcriptions of old data. Reluctance to personally engage. Perhaps a descendent transmits dattaswami qualities into the digital matrix.

I'm not sure what you mean by descendent. But, yes, it's possible it is a disciple or devotee. I've said that elsewhere. If so, then his assertions, in his responses, are even more problematic. Because he is calling himself by the gurus name while copying and pasting his lectures. Then responding as if he is the same person. I am pretty sure that would be a no-no is most ashrams. If it is approved, well then the guru is responsible for any problems that come from that process.

Logical deduction is not the same as making stuff up, Detective Sherlock.

Let me know if I assert they are the same. I don't think his posts show much logical deduction. Attempts at deduction, yes. I don't think he's making stuff up. I think he is running on models and sees things through his models and the buffered, yesman life of a guru makes it even easier to do this. I think he is repeating ideas that have been around a long time. Ideas that have caused a lot of damage. That said, I think his thinking if often extremely poor.

Neither is intellectually exploring possibilities based on evidence.

I didn't assert that either.

If you think this was responding to the gist of my post, then I need to tell you it wasn't.

[Iwannaplato]

Neither is intellectually exploring possibilities based on evidence.

It's hard to tell what you mean here, but if you think this is what he's doing, then you really misunderstand him and the situation. He's not exploring possibilities. He is telling us his final answers on a wide range of issues. Those posts have been around for a long time and they state 'the way things are'. It's the same Hindu guru all religions are the same schtick that's come through a bunch of gurus and you'll find however that 'really' all religions are like Hinduism, the guru version. He sees his model everywhere. But he sure isn't exploring possibilities. He got his answers a long time ago and he's just copying and pasting.

You or we can explore, but he's long time done.

You know how much the influx of Western capital via Western devotees can add the the economy of an ashram?

[Lacewing]

If this is the same dattaswami, then he or his followers (Walker: maybe you can sign-up for yet another absurd con-man to follow) must be pasting to MANY sites on behalf of Universal Spirituality for World Peace, because it wouldn't make sense for him to focus on this forum, especially given the response.

Neither does it make sense for anyone else to claim to be imparting whatever divine truth they might claim to know by posting on this forum! What a joke. This is a stage for dueling with ideas and comedy. Anyone who claims they are here to accomplish God's work is ridiculous. They are here to parade across the stage in their self-righteous costume, serving only themself with their imagination. It is dishonest, lazy, and delusional.

Anyone who truly wishes to share a message with those who are receptive to it and want it, would devote themselves to seeking out and committing themselves to those people. Claiming on a forum to know a god and speak on behalf of that god is the most obvious wanna-be-god sham there is for those who can't accomplish their own following or mega-church.

The fascinating thing is how intoxicated such people become in service to their delusion, such that they cannot see in themselves what is being so obviously and glaringly reflected back to them by so many others who are not intoxicated. The strength of their delusion is impressive -- too bad it's dangerous. If only they could devote themselves to something genuine rather than falseness.

[Iwannaplato]

If this is the same dattaswami, then he or his followers (Walker: maybe you can sign-up for yet another absurd con-man to follow) must be pasting to MANY sites on behalf of Universal Spirituality for World Peace, because it wouldn't make sense for him to focus on this forum, especially given the response.

I've seen one other philosophy forum getting this. onlinephilosophyclub.

Neither does it make sense for anyone else to claim to be imparting whatever divine truth they might claim to know by posting on this forum! What a joke. This is a stage for dueling with ideas and comedy. Anyone who claims they are here to accomplish God's work is ridiculous. They are here to parade across the stage in their self-righteous costume, serving only themself with their imagination. It is dishonest, lazy, and delusional.

I actually don't have a problem with them claiming to impart divine truth or any other truth. Without the flooding, etc. From there I disagree with this person's ideas. If he could focus on criticisms in a reasonable way, then it'd be fine. Of course, there are quite a few people here who can't manage that. And that's the problem, once we get past the flooding. I do think it's rude to reproduce you online books and lectures here. But that's me and my tastes.

Anyone who truly wishes to share a message with those who are receptive to it and want it, would devote themselves to seeking out and committing themselves to those people. Claiming on a forum to know a god and speak on behalf of that god is the most obvious wanna-be-god sham there is for those who can't accomplish their own mega-church.

He avoided saying that he is God, which he does on his website. In fact, he said he could only say something else. But if it's Dattaswami this wasn't true. He can and has said even more about himself.

The fascinating thing is how intoxicated such people become in service to their delusion, such that they cannot see in themselves what is being so obviously reflected back to them by so many others who are not intoxicated. The strength of their delusion is impressive -- too bad it's dangerous rather than being helpful. If only they could devote themselves to something genuine rather than falseness.

For me it almost doesn't matter so much that it's a religious claim. It's his behavior.

[Lacewing]

For me it almost doesn't matter so much that it's a religious claim. It's his behavior.

I can agree that it's the behavior that's the most problematic from my perspective too.

It just happens, on this forum, that people who make religious claims do so in extreme ways that elevate themselves above others, and they avoid the challenges that might show otherwise. So, I don't see any credibility in their claims... just a lot of false, self-serving distortion. With the exception of Belinda... who represented her theist beliefs with integrity, and the courage to respond to discussions.

[Walker]

If this is the same dattaswami, then he or his followers (Walker: maybe you can sign-up for yet another absurd con-man to follow) must be pasting to MANY sites on behalf of Universal Spirituality for World Peace, because it wouldn't make sense for him to focus on this forum, especially given the response.

Since you addressed this to me, I'll tell you this.

That's a nasty little Woke comment. I don't follow absurd con-men, and the denial of your projection does not imply that I follow anyone, or should follow anyone, or should not follow anyone. Neither does it validate your assessment of dataswami, for you have not defined the term. This goes without saying to rational folks, which is why I say it to you.

I have a suggestion for your New Year's Resolution. You are no doubt familiar with that principle so this is not the time or place to attempt to invalidate it, should you feel the nasty need.

You should vow to not be such a .....

Removing that crutch might make room for philosophy.




As for the rest of what you wrote, I've already addressed the tyrannical need to change or banish others. It's a tale as old as humanity.

[Walker]

Good grief!

Dattaswami is pouring over the border of PN!

Build that wall!





(That is the principle)