Trying to hug the truth

I've been around the western "new-age"/commercial-spirituality scene for some time. Around this scene you can find so many classes, people and books presenting their version of eastern philosophy and ancient cultures. Often you'll find among those a vary sad reality in which truth moves aside, making way to commercialism. You find teachers who dismiss legitimate criticism on their teachings simply by arguments such as "you're thinking too much " or "you're not open to new ideas". You'll find people clinging to ideas they find pleasant even when they are proven wrong, simply by the notion of "all is one" and "what the blip do we know". When asked to present valid arguments against the disproofs they simply reply that knowledge is irrelevant and simply "feeling" that it is true is enough for them. Such a notion of "knowledge is ignorance" is so very common among the neo-hinduists/neo-budhists/neo-native-americans of the west. These western followers of the orient will be very sad to hear that grate personalities such as Shankara and Buddha, the ones they respect as spiritual masters, would have shown no support whatsoever in such ideas. It is quite obvious from looking in their writings that those thinkers were indeed philosophers. They came from a culture of logical debates in an attempt to reach conclusions, seek truths through philosophical inquiry. To arguments such as "it's true because I feel it" the real, historical, Buddha would probably reply: "well then, you're a cheater!" and walk away. Postmodernism was not common these days and no one would have even think of following a guru who's ideas were disproof in front of followers eyes.

But, of course, there is a grate gap between the historical Buddha and the western Buddha "logo" of the new-age culture. Instead of showing you the truth of his teachings, he tries to drag you into it. He uses the weapon of charisma rather then the light of truth presented by the original one in public debates. Sometime, when you tell him you disagree, he tells you you are not open to new ideas. How can you disagree now? You don't want to be consider narrow minded, do you? Or sometimes he simply smiles and tells you you have to follow your hart, when in fact he wants you to follow his hart after he bought your trust with his smile. His followers are victimised indeed, but have only themselves to blame. Simply because they choose to accept a simple incorrect equation: if he smiles, then his words are true. This equation is, of course, untrue. What I say here may seem a bit harsh and some of the readers may choose to ignore such criticism and choose a softer notion instead. Well, that is exactly what I'm talking about! Just because a word is not pleasant to them, they define it as untrue. Is that a valid conclusion? Is it so hard to smile, be nice to people and say the word "love" in each sentence? Do you have to be "enlighten" to be able to do so? Well then, what makes you think there's no one using these things to sell you ideas? Common salesmen do it all the time, don't they?
This is what the Katha-Upanishad means by saying: "One path is pleasant and the other is good. The wise should choose the good" (1.2.1). It is indeed very tempting to accept the words of the one who hugs you rather then strain your head a little and try to think a little bit more. I do think that many of these "love"/"all is one" theories are based less on love and more on laziness. Truth demands hard work. To think, to read books, to successfully confront counter arguments. In a culture that sets escapism and mass-media as its ultimate goal, it is very easy to just let go of all the hard work and simply declare "all is one" and we don't need to think. In other words: laziness.
Sometimes the spiritual seeker should be harsh. Always he should insist on valid conclusions. No, it is not disrespective. On the contrary: it is the biggest respect among intellectuals. Was the Buddha disrespective when he attended public debates with counter schools? Was Shankara? Ramanuja? Madhavacharya? Patanjali? No, there is nothing wrong in following valid conclusions, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. No, it is not a sin to tell you're guru, master or yoga instructor you see an apparent faults in his teachings and ask him to explain them. Remember the words of the Bhagavad-Gita: "Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master, serve him and inquire him submissively. One who have witnessed the Truth can show it to you" (4.34). Look carefully on this quote: "Inquire him submissively". Be submissive, be respectful, yes. Always. But also inquire. Ask him. See if he has a valid logical conclusion to each and every point.If he's for real, he will answer. And if he avoid you're question, saying you should stop thinking too much or that your just being narrow minded, well, then you no longer have to be submissive. Be alert. If you read George Orwell you should know "Knowledge is ignorance" is a slogan that can be used to control you. Serve as a disciple only if he serves as a guru.
Letting go from your mind is not freedom. It'll turn you into a slave in the hands of cheaters. The mind is not you're enemy as long as it's controlled. And controlling you're mind means making it follow valid conclusions rather then whimsical desires. And the desire to cheat and be cheated is one of the most dangerous ones. Can love not be the way? Or no-mind? I'm not saying it is and I'm not saying it isn't. But the way to finding weather they are must go through logical proof. Through the mind. Only when you see the road you should start walking in it. And you see with your eyes, not your feet.
I'm not saying that the "hugging guru" can't be true. I'm not saying that every nice guy who talks about peace and love is a cheater. He doesn't have to be. Just as long as he follows certain rules. As long as he is honest and is very strict about intellectual integrity. "Truth is God" said Gandhi. If you want to reach God, worship the truth.