Forty or fifty years ago when I was an adolescent trying to come to grips with the daunting 'calling' of approaching manhood versus the immense gem of the Gita philosophy, one of the truly moving aspects of devotees that knocked me off my feet was their humility.
To see such soft-hearted souls deeply concerned with everyone's welfare was astounding. I watched guys that I previously knew as little more than animals in karmi life transform into kind and gentle sapient beings, compassionate and forgiving of our blind western upbringing.
We learnt how much of our identity was false ego and undertook to awaken our real ego through rekindling our relationship with God. Yet, how much of this transformation was nothing more than an act - adopting a second false ego of identifying as a neophyte devotee? Unless and until self-realisation occurs, the new 'spiritual identity' may be nothing more than yet another ego trip. Oh, the irony of bodily identification and shaven head with sikha (high ponytail)! Imported Indian clothing was booming, the in-fashion. Everyone at least had a kurta - those sheer collarless cotton tops with fancy embroidered patterns - as compulsory for the budding hippy as the iconic tie-dye t-shirt!
Decades have gone by, and we still witness ex-iskcon devotees (stalwarts and bloopers alike) returning to their former selves after the passing of Prabhupāda and the dissolving shemozzle that once was ISKCON. They say a leopard never changes its spots and like many others I have seen people go through a myriad of personality changes only to revert to their former selves - myself included (and my ex-wife!).
So how much of 'being a devotee' is an act? I've heard of friends coming back from a short visit to India miraculously speaking with a Bengali accent as if they have suddenly become elevated in their wisdom. Even the rigmarole of dressing in dhoti, sari, etc reeks of outward appearances, adopting a uniform merely for the look and the impression it gives. I've seen an ex temple president hide in their bedroom and choof 50 bhongs a day while scheming to rob a Nimbin heroin dealer 'because they owed me'. I've seen sex-starved devi-dasis go apeshit upon discovering the world of female orgasms. I've seen guys losing their marbles and completely losing the plot. Some even commit suicide, sadly.
With charlatans and fake gurus everywhere, gone are the days of assuming someone in the dress of a sannyasi as being a holy person. In fact we're more inclined to view them with suspicion. The valuable adage 'judge a fool by their speech and a wise soul by their words' couldn't be more apt.
These days cosplay is a recognised pastime where folks like to dress up as their favourite superheroes. Is parading about wearing some kind of spiritual uniform any different? In the 60s and 70s hippie era it was very fashionable to have a guru - and there were loads to choose from. Lots of yogis travelled to the west seeking labha-puja-prathishtha (profit, adoration and distinction), performing their gymnastic feats to the amazement of the gullible followers. Many of these fake gurus even went as far as to claim to be God, or at least an incarnation of a God. And plenty of us bought it. I handed over a dole cheque (the equivalent of a week's wage which is what they were really after) to learn TM…. but was disappointed with the lack of results when I failed to transcend ANYTHING. Maybe I would have been more successful if I wore the robes of a monk and spoke with an Indian accent?
There are different types of religious motivators. There are the genuine articles who are sent by God to deliver a message, nay, to deliver us from our predicament. And then there are the charlatans masquerading as God-Men (or Women) preaching a concocted mixture partly based on scripture and the rest in their imagination.
I'm pretty sure we all know someone who did TM, got into Divine Light Mission, joined the Hare Krishnas, became a born-again Christian, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist or even a Scientologist. Question is, are they still doing it, or have they reverted to their former self?
The main difference between Personalism and Impersonalism as far as spirituality goes is the definition of ego. In Personalism the teaching is that there is false ego (bodily identification) and real ego (identifying as a servant of God); whereas in Impersonalism (such as Buddhism) all ego is deemed an illusion and identity is a furphy.
Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are forms of Bhakti-yoga and as such are forms of Personalism - as, like many beliefs, God is a person just like us (although the Supreme Being) whereas Mayavadi, Sunyavadi or similar nihilistic beliefs conclude everything is an illusion (including God) and ultimately personality is extinguished. Therefore Buddhism is disguised atheism. Ultimately Buddhists do not believe in God - therefore it is not a faith or a religion in the usual sense but rather a belief system.
Beliefs are subject to change. Real religion isn't. That's the difference. Religion is not belief, it's faith - two completely different things.
