Exclusive Online: The Ammachi Letters:
Should Ammaji Stick To Hugging?

I found the Ammaji interview (OPEN EXCHANGE, April-June 2006) pretty "lame" in terms of philosophy—her forte is hugging people, not preaching—so I answered the questions myself, from the Gaudiya Vaishnava standpoint. I think I gave much better answers, but then, I don't hug millions of people. Compare and contrast: what do you think?

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your answers may be more eloquent than Ammaji's. Keep in mind that Ammaji, a native of India, was speaking extemporaneously and communicating through an interpreter, so she didn't have the opportunity to hone and edit her comments. We published Ammaji's interview because she is newsworthy, having inspired millions with a personal message of love and devotion. Without debating philosophies, could it be that maybe you need a hug?

Since you are being smart-alecks, I am going to respond to you. Yes, I need a hug, but that is not self-realization, nor does it grant liberation from birth and death, which is the immediate goal of life.

You contend that if only Ammaji 1) were not a native of India 2) was not speaking extemporaneously and 3) was not speaking through a translator, she would be able to speak beautiful, elegant philosophy. Baloney. I never heard of a "spiritual personality" who was tongue-tied in any circumstance, India and translators be damned!

There are a number of "Holy Mothers" who come here from India, of whom Ammaji has become, by far, the most popular. It is an idea of guru---that by merely touching you, you become spiritually advanced. But the model of guru-disciple is the Bhagavad Gita--when Arjuna became despondent, Krsna did not just hug him, altho Krsna is God and can do anything by any means. No hug. Instead He spoke the Bhagavad Gita, which is about three things---karma, jnana, and bhakti, and in the best sense, is about one thing only--devotional service to Krsna.

This devotional service, or bhakti-yoga, is the highest form of love and pleasure, consisting of unlimited spiritual happiness (ananda). It is an exchange of beautiful loving feelings between the devotee and Krsna, and we do not find this sort of bhakti with Ammaji. So Ammaji is shakti-guru---shakti means energy, female. Bue shakti alone will not carry the day. Shakti-bhakti-jnana, these three things one gets from the bonafide spiritual master---otherwise, you may capture the post of guru, that is one thing, but without jnana, knowledge, philosophy, there is no substance, and without real devotion with a real Object, Krsna, this "peace and devotion for millions" just blows away in the wind. An old master of mine used to define guru "brahma nishtha, shastra vetthi"

The guru's faith is fixed in Brahman, which has three Forms, and he is schooled in all relevant scriptures---he may not be a Vedic scholar, but he has some ample knowledge. These are all things to help us avoid bogus gurus and cheaters. There are many rascals with a blissful smile and a big beard looking to take your money--"I will touch you with this peacock feather and in three weeks you will become God--give me $500!"

The "spiritual marketplace" is a huge gaggle of cheaters and cheated, and it is extremely rare to find an actual sadhu (lit."good person") there. Just as, when we go to buy a diamond, we must know something about diamonds, similarly we must, when we go guru-hunting, know what the shastra says.

Ammaji is a nice person, but I think she is made too much of by a class of people who want everything very easy.

I might add that this idea of enlightment by a touch is spoken of in the Vedic literatures. There was a great devotee, an associate of Lord Chaitanya. in Bengal, who was known as a very eccentric individual. He carried a whip, and anybody he touched with the whip became a great devotee also! So that is B&D enlightment, as opposed to hugging enlightment (but its the same sort of thing). Hoping this finds you well,

Clayton/Madhusudana Das, you've made several excellent points which we're pleased to be able to air here. Incidentally, we never meant any disrespect with the "hug" comment. We were, however clumsily, trying to suggest that a little love goes a long way, and perhaps you're being too critical of this gentle woman who is simply trying to warm hearts with her hugs.

Dear OPEN EXCHANGE,

I agree with Clayton O' Claerach's judgments of Ammachi's teachings (OPEN EXCHANGE July-September 2006). When looked at clearly, and not through the dreamy lens of indiscriminating hero worship, her words come across as little more than commonplace, rather uninspired, and shallow religious platitudes we all already know by heart. Her fantastic success as a guru seems to be due largely to very savvy media campaigning, and to the fact that she's being used as a pawn of the U.N. and its subsidiaries to promote their political goal of a single, one-world religion.

While ever paying lip-service to "diversity," the global scene they're working towards is one of intellectual, cultural and spiritual super-conformity. Amma's rhapsodies about the oneness and, ideally, blending of all religions suits their aims admirably, as does her gender and "Mother" orientation, which with one hand strokes popular feminist sentiments and with the other woos observers into a state of uncritical trust. In all likelihood she herself isn't fully aware of how she's being exploited.

I was personally present at one of her public appearances in Castro Valley last June, and it was clear from the goings-on that she's not the power behind the throne of the "Ammachi" empire.

As for her famous hugging: Being a first-timer I was seated in front right next to Amma herself and watched up close her embracing of the multitudes. Far from experiencing a loving, tender, personal exchange, the devotees were each herded up by attendants and mechanically situated on Amma's body. While she perfunctorily clutched them, her attention was always elsewhere, carrying on running conversations with her right hand people. Distracted by what appeared to be business talk, she took virtually no notice of the individuals pressed up against her except to deliver certain unvarying words and movements by rote. It was one of the coldest, most mechanical displays I've ever seen. After sitting in the midst of this for an hour waiting for my ticket section to be called up (yes, everyone was issued alphabetized and numbered tickets at the door, just like at the DMV), I'm afraid I became too hungry and bored to stay and left before I got my own hug. So I can't report beyond what I've already relayed here.

Your response to O'Claerach's letter was condescending and dismissive. Why not debate philosophies? In cases where people are giving their lives over to a spiritual teacher, in matters where the direction their very souls are taking is the issue, discernment of philosophy is absolutely essential.

Barbara-- Most interesting letter! Amachi divides her attention during hugs? Amachi a pawn of the UN? The UN in a secret conspiracy to promulgate a one-world religion? Where can we find corroboration? These are serious charges, and we'd need to be on solid ground before airing them before 1/3 milliion readers. In consideration of publishing your letter, would you be so kind as to clarify your relationship to Clayton O' Claerich (if any) or to his own religious affiliation? If we're going to break news here, we need to know our source!

I don't know Clayton O'Claerich at all; I simply read his letter in your magazine. Nor am I a member of his religion. In regards to the U.N. and its analogues, simply do some internet searches and you'll find your corroboration. As for Amma being their pawn, notice the awards and accolades and publicity she gets from them, notice how conveniently it serves their purposes, and draw the logical conclusions. And yes, she does divide her attention during hugs, I saw it myself. Publish the letter or not, entirely as you see fit. But don't close your eyes to unpleasant truths; it's not fair to your readers who look to you for accurate and intelligent information.

OPEN EXCHANGE's mission is to provide a forum for people to highlight their views and to promote their events and services. Since we're not experts in comparative religions we probably should avoid entering into this kind of debate. Instead, we'd rather focus on finding areas of common agreement, while still acknowledging differences in interpretation and honoring each individual's right to practice.

We have no stake either in promoting or condemning any particular religious leader or practice. Still, it's difficult for us to see why Ammachi seems to be the focus of so much negativity by Barbara and Clayton. We "googled" Ammachi per Barbara's suggestion and found nothing but praise for her work. Ammachi has been recognized worldwide and compared with Mother Teresa for her efforts in helping to feed and house the poor. The worst criticism we could find is that her followers tend to deify her and expect her to perform the occasional miracle, an "occupational hazard" among not just gurus but all public figures, from politicians to rock stars. For Barbara to accuse the U.N. of conspiring to promote a world religion, simply because they happened to honor this Hindu holy woman, isn't justified by the facts. Don't you think that the U.N.'s Moslem, Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish delegates would quickly dispel any such scheme?

We believe that Ammachi is what she appears to be: a decent, kind woman who grew up in relative poverty and made it her mission to do good and spread kindness. Considering how far she's come and how much she's accomplished, Ammachi comes off looking pretty good to us.