And I’m so glad to have you as a regular. As I mentioned, your ideas seem fascinating and I’d love to have your input!

The second quote is actually from Kabir, one line of a longer verse, but M.B. does cite the same image in the “Spiritual Jingoism” essay: “…Of course, the pretended seeker and the pretentious saint may become closeted in the arena of life and play their game in the wilderness of the world through selfish motives. Then, as Kabir has said, they both sink in the waters like a boat made out of stone…” M.B. is only addressing the level of personal, individual experience, and the master/devotee dynamic; the collective level is more of a mystery, since as you mention problems eventually arise at the group level almost regardless of the authenticity of the starting figure.

In general, though, I do think there are some minimal criteria that can help differentiate authentic vs. bogus spiritual claims, although of course never definitively or “scientifically,” etc. (beyond a given individual experience, that is — which by definition can never constitute a general criteria in any strict sense). The main one being that God lures rather than coerces (a la Whitehead), and divine love in the broadest sense will always humble itself enough to decline insistence on being followed, if it comes to that (as it doesn’t need anything, it’s us who should need it, etc.).

It is almost nice to hear your willingness to come out more directly against Adi Da; so as not to drag John Forth’s spiritual experiences through the mud, I decided not to mention the accusations of abuse in either our conversation or my discussion of it. Besides, I happen to be a believer in the gist behind J. Gordeon Melton‘s efforts to banish the word “cult” from discourse; too often the ease of labeling new religious movements as “cults” lets established religions get away with basically the same behavior. Both the Catholic Church and Adi Da, for instance, seem to have been accused of sexual abuses. Yet, for the most part, it is only the little one, the “cult,” that is being told to close down completely or getting any real legal scrutiny.

I am tempted to get behind your first quotation from Meher Baba there, pointing to the two categories of seekers, but in fact I think there is a real, slippery problem of indiscretion here. First, it is all to easy to think oneself a true seeker (we all tend to think that we, in our interior fullness are genuine) and the other person as not (seeing only what they present to the exterior). How can you penetrate beneath the other, or even into yourself? Second, one often becomes a real seeker—that is, I think, one truly open to changing one’s mind—without knowing it or wanting to be. There are forces at work beyond usual comprehension, whether divine or unconscious. Just because a person thinks something and defends it doesn’t mean that he or she isn’t capable of being persuaded, whether he or she knows it or not.

The second MB quotation, too: for me, one of the reasons religion is so interesting is precisely that this isn’t true. Even the most crackpot guru out there is capable of having some very interesting, very worthwhile, very much not drowning pupils. Say, for instance, that some incontrovertible stone slab somewhere was found, dated to about 31 C.E., saying “I am a fake. -Jesus.” Still, there would be wonderful human consequences of Christianity. Jesus may drown, but Chartres Cathedral is still a wonder.

I love your discussion of Christianity; says things I was trying to say to Forth much better than I was saying it.