why isn't the letter from the ex-devotee, "The Reality Of The Hugging Saint Game" on page 11 given a star? Come on. I think some of you (Serai...) need to go read it before you post again.

I'm sorry, but I don't want my face smashed into the smelly, stained bosom of a fat Indian woman who sucks pus out of leprosy sores. Imagine, passing herself off as a saint while selling dolls made in her image. (You want to talk about arrogance!? Have you ever seen a Dawkins doll?)

I hug the people I love... I don't have to stand in line or be badgered into handing over money to get my hugs.

Even though there is a satirical take on Yoga shopping and marketing mania (see GreatTranscendentalYoga SuperStore), the "Amma dolls, which were being lugged around by a surprisingly large number of adult women in the hall" is pretty fuuny. Wouldn't be surprised to see this on the YogaDawg site in some form or other.

Davis has a soft touch with his interview subject and unearths some uncommon wisdom in his well-rounded article. Amma is a phenomenon that is difficult to explain to the hardened Western heart, but Davis does a fantastic job in revealing its appeal in the east and the west, as well as its predictable commercialization and unfortunate politicization. His interviews are both revealing and profound and they manage to catch a wide diversity of views within the Amma camp.

Western Fundamentalists, whether Christian or Atheist (and they are much more alike than different), may dismiss Amma as some sort of aberration, another charlatan guru from the East, but that would be discounting her origins at the lowest rung of the Indian social ladder to become a personification of the mother of the universe in the eyes of her devotees. Of course, fiercely independent minds may roll their eyes, but one must ask what happiness have they brought to the world, outside of their own ill-tempered caustic dismissal of a very profound human need? Skepticism is all fine and good, but itself can become a blinder of doctrinal arrogance that does little to further understanding of human beings and the complicated worlds they inhabit and create.

The greatest biological bond in the animal kingdom is that of a mother and her children. It even trumps the instinct towards self-preservation. The fact that our world, itself personified as Mother Earth, is suffering a dearth of such loving-kindness, may indicate the essential appeal of Amma or even phenomena like Da Vinci's Code and it search for the feminine within Christian tradition.

Saving the world will obviously require more than hugs, but at least it's a start, as it helps restore our lost connection with each other. And you don't have to rely on Amma to get started.

Found this somewhat new website called cultofthehuggingsaint.com for alternative news of Ammachi and cult recovery resources.

I spent over ten years in the ashram of a supposed guru. Her name is Gurumayi, the successor to Muktananda. I thought I was on a true path, the I had an enlightened guru who would show me the way. I have written a book about it that you can view at the-guru-looked-good.blogspot.com. I've seen a guru up close. I've lived the experience of the so-called spiritual path. Most of all, I no longer believe there is such a thing as an enlightened person. We're all in this together.

C'mon, the "some" ruse is old. No, I don't think you're being dishonest. Whether you are or not is beside the point. I simply thought your arguments were suspect. Anyway, some of everybody can be hostile and bitter, so what? Trying to label some people, who take offense at being insulted aka "arrogant atheists" (simply because they believe differently), as hostile, bitter, angry, defensive, condescending and so on is lame. It's like telling somebody fuck you! and when they say fuck you too!, you accuse them of being hostile, bitter, etc..

Also, I never said anything about religion and/or spirituality being an either/or or all or nothing proposition. Thanks for the book suggestion, I might look into it. Nah, that's not true. I probably won't, but thanks anyway.

I'm not sure why I'm surprised at your dismissal of my explanation, since I've seen you pull the same trick before - i.e., you think someone else is being dishonest, therefore they are. You decide someone else's ideas are nonsense, therefore there couldn't possibly be anything useful in them, even though the subject under discussion is by definition a subjective one. Talk about disingenuous.

But since my comments were not directed at you, but at another poster entirely, it really doesn't matter. What I wrote was exactly what I meant - some atheists are hostile and bitter, and not all atheists are prejudiced enough to think that religion = nonsense. You may think that the subject of religion and spirituality is an either/or, all-or-nothing proposition, but five minutes surfing on the net (or a half-hour dipping into Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth) would disprove that notion easily. That you are crossing the notion out and insisting that I mean all atheists speaks far more of your reaction against (I imagine) past injustices than it does about any intentions I might have had.

This is a thread I'll be sad to see remaindered. A lot of comments stood out. As usual, I was most impressed with Siddha Ed, whose knowledge and experience come together so nicely on these matters especially.

Is it against the rules to recommend somebody elses file? I recommend Siddha Ed's.

If you're still there SE, the last sentence of your post is not clear to me. "Salon has reminded me some will call me a "meditating fairy," but that they won't." (I hope I have the right.)

What is a "meditating fairy?" I've never heard the expression, and what are you saying about yourself?

"Hell, it makes them fundamentalists, because in framing their objection that way, they are approaching the subject of religion in exactly the same terms as any literal fundamentalist. I.e., the only possible interpretation of religion is absolutely literal, therefore, since the literal claims of religion (gods that dwell in the sky, or in a volcano, or have elephant heads, etc.) cannot possibly be true, religion must by definition be worthless hokum. This betrays an incredibly naive view of religion, not to mention it's not a particularly profound way of looking at humanity or the world."

I'm sorry but your framing of the argument is a liitle disingenuous. Though you do cleverly qualify it with "some", the "atheist equals fundamentalist" is a tired meme. Atheist who refute the "god in the sky" stuff are not insisting that the only possible interpretation of religion be literal. They are reacting to what you call a literal interpretation, but in reality, it's a quite common one. Not nearly as extreme as religious fundamentalists but common nonetheless.

The neat trick you're using to distance yourself and castigate "some" atheists, is, in the name of metaphorical profoundness, defining religion to mean a spirituality so broad that it includes every "deep impluses of the human heart" which, aside from being subjective (which is not a problem) is a pretty meaningless assertion. It's my understanding that "some" atheists don't object to subjective experiences (how could they?) or the study of subjective experiences, what they seem to object to in this case is subjective experiences being position or claimed as fact or, more accurately, ultimate or "divine" "truths".

Anyway, if some people want to spend hours in line waiting for a "divine hug" from a stranger, eh, whatever. So be it. I could think of plenty of worse ways to kill time.