Narcis Tarcau aka Swami Vivekananda Saraswati, established the yoga community of Agama on the island of Koh Phangan, Thailand. He has recently fled the island following the reporting of 31 written records documenting sexual assault, including from senior staff at the school (detailed in this Be Scofield article “Women Accuse Agama Yoga Founder Swami Vivekananda Saraswati of Sexual Assault” https://medium.com/@bescofield/women-accuse-agama-yoga-founder-swami-vivekananda-saraswati-of-sexual-assault-28baf12c781e) . The other men named below have also fled and are also accused, of considerably less serious acts. This a recording of a ‘Secret Talk’ made by Tarcau at the end of the first day of the Vira (hero) Men’s Training at Agama, June 2018. I attended and gained much from this course and three other Agama events I experienced. I witnessed admirable qualities in the teachers I had. I met beautiful souls studying there. This isn’t an examination or repetition of the accusations. It’s a call to take a close look at the teachings to understand the context of the actions and avoid further suffering.
In this speech Narcis tells us that men are women's superior and that this is justified in ancient religious writings as well as by the relative accomplishments abilities of the two genders.
We were told to keep all teachings secret. I understand and value honour codes generally and have never revealed a word of what goes on in Mankind Project Initiation for example, to a non-initiate. Nor ever discussed with anyone the experience of anyone else partaking in a workshop or circle of any kind. I chose to record this because of a gut-feeling, and because Narcis made comments which I judged to be both misogynistic, inaccurate, highly-selective and simply lazy-thinking in their interpretation at the beginning of the talk (before the recording starts. I challenge him on this earlier statement at about 57 minutes in). And because his energy seemed like a Yogic Sith Lord and I had serious misgivings. The secrecy he asked for and the bad karma he assured us would occur if we broke it felt to me more like ‘Bros before hos’ and a threat than a sacred pact. And I was, since his opening statement, feeling that the gut-reaction I’d had prior to joining had been right and I might leave the course after or during the speech. I share it now because I think it may serve the purpose of elucidating the thinking which may have justified the abusive actions which have been reported. I share it because a statement by a teacher is totally different to the experience of another student in terms of confidentiality. Trust has already been breached. I share it to help prevent further harm. I share it because the philosophy of an organisation, and the assumptions upon which it is built are more powerful than any individual and can survive any individual. Indeed they probably predate Narcis and perhaps even his early teacher, a controversial cult leader and wanted criminal. If Agama and it’s teachings survive in any form, I believe they’d benefit from some exposure to sunlight.
What I get from this speech is that the basic assumption of Narcis (and presumably of Agama as an institution, since it is Narcis’s baby) regarding the two genders is that men are superior. Women are of matter. Men are of spirit. Spirit is superior to matter. So men are superior to women. It is easy to see how this attitude could justify over-riding consent or not seeing any need for it. I’ll give examples of how Narcis makes this clear – implicit and explicit, in his speech and how he uses religious history to support him in a selective way. You may disagree that he is ultimately saying this. I think it’s absolutely obvious and I think the horrible catalog of abuse allegations gives weight to this.
Listen and decide for yourself. https://dsound.audio/#!/@mathnawi21/20180805t021048472z-agama-yoga-vira-secret-talk
I’d forgotten I had recorded this until these allegations came out. I’d completed the course. Made some good friends. Learned a lot and had come to respect Narcis for the highly detailed and technical knowledge of his staff, his open-ness to being questioned. He described my challenge as imaginative and appeared to be considering what I’d said rather than dismissing out of hand or shutting me down, which had surprised me. When he spoke to us on the last day he had in my view (I didn’t record) softened his views somewhat. He offered a private meeting to discuss my views (he‘d described indigenous cultures as primitive and unenlightened. I said that they showed more wisdom than ours or India’s in their ability to live in harmony with nature. He considered this, and agreed that this was an important virtue and suggested the meeting to discuss further as he was short of time, apologising.). This was in June – perhaps he was being forced by allegations soon to break publicly into considering his views. My impression was of a man who hadn’t considered that he might be wrong much before. Muktananda and Ram were also open to challenge and questioning. I experienced both as warm, committed and caring individuals. Every day I still do the yoga practices I was taught. They have benefited me. I only spent 8 days at Agama, along with an evening transfiguration ritual which was truly magical. And I’ve felt some conflict. I can only imagine how people feel whose experience of this island has been infused with Agama. Who have discovered many new and valuable parts of themselves through the teachings. Who have found love and friendship in the community. It must be very, very hard to use discernment about what residue is good and what bad. About how to proceed. The confusion and pain of those who experienced abuse is of course beyond imagination.
Ultimately I chose to continue with Agama despite major misgivings with Narcis because I wanted to try something new to me, to see if I could extract the good and filter the bullshit. To accept that most teachers and teachings have faults. Needless to say, knowing what I know now I wouldn’t have continued or even begun of course. I’m glad I challenged Narcis. I wish I’d given more weight to unease at his words and bearing. Trusted instinct.
Back to the speech - Narcis claimed that women were men’s intellectual and spiritual inferior and that it was men’s job to guide them. Muktananda implies at the end of the speech and later said to me explicitly said to me that rape and violence was a problem of the feminine not the masculine. This crazy doublespeak requires some explanation. Basically the masculine is viewed as being all about control and nobility, the feminine as being about indulging, weakness and lacking control. Therefore a man out of control was in his feminine. So rape in the world was a problem with the feminine. Narcis also implied that evil and temptation were also of the feminine – everything was polarity apparently, and men got all the positive stuff. It seemed more akin to the fundamentalist teachings of Abrahamic religion than any Eastern philosophy I’d come across. Narcisstically projecting masculine human failings onto the feminine. I spoke about this briefly with Ram, who I judged intellectual enough to recognise that this was tortuous logic. I mentioned that this was at odds with Jungian psychology - which underpins pretty much the entire modern Western psychotherapeutic tradition - and the notion of the immature masculine, who acts irresponsibly because they have not yet integrated their feminine (anima), not because they are too feminine. This is represented in Yin-Yang symbology with the opposite colour forming a central part of each side. He had never heard of this and I found myself wondering how much knowledge of the world outside the Agama doctrine this otherwise thoughtful and intelligent-seeming man had. How much independent thought he’d given to what he’d learned.
Narcis makes a lot out the lack of female chess players or great artists through the ages. He takes no account of the cultural and historical context where women would have had less opportunity to do this whatever the underlying preferences and abilities of the genders. And it all seemed a little beside the point. I had come to learn about the yogic aspects of masculinity – Narcis’s purpose seemed to make us feel good about our masculinity by demonstrating that we were better than women. This felt to me like the difference between patriotism (loving your country) and nationalism (thinking your country is superior. It seemed weak. It seemed unhealthy. It seemed an obsession. Since we ourselves are matter, contemplating our spiritual existence, using in part our squidgy, soft grey-matter to do so, the notion of hierarchy as to which is most important seems to me irrelevant – were we not matter as well as spirit we could not even ask the question, nor would we need or want to. Or even be ‘we’. Hierarchy seems a very earthly concern. I also found myself thinking often at these declarations of male superiority, of my greatest teacher, Xamam Alba Maria, a female shaman and psychotherapist who I judged spiritually, intellectually, energetically and even physically (with Narcis’s resemblence in both ideology and appearance to the Steve Bannon of Tantra) could wipe the floor with any man in the room.
Two examples which he used to justify the superiority of men stood out for me. The first was Buddha’s saying that his sangha would last less long if it included women. The Buddha has clearly stated that women are just as capable of enlightenment as men: “Women, Ananda, having gone forth are able to realize the fruit of stream-attainment or the fruit of once-returning or the fruit of non-returning or arahantship (attaining nirvana)". As Narcis claims, it is true that he did predict that his teachings would last half as long if women were allowed in the sangha, 500 years rather than a thousand. However, firstly, Buddha was wrong, his teachings still last today 2500 years later. Secondly this prediction could have been because of the potentially destructive temptations of the presence of the opposite sex. Not because of something inherent to women. But to the relationship between the genders. The second was a description of the crowds at the Sermon of the Mount. Narcis claims that the bible refers to ‘people plus women and children’, he said that this was because the bible did not regard women fully as people. Firstly every bible I could find online said 5000 men, not people. Secondly ‘people’ could easily be a political reference to citizens, tax-payers, men as head of the household. Lastly, it is really a surprise if a 2000 year old book is sexist: It wasn’t written by Jesus. They’re both readily open to different interpretations, unless your aim is to gather evidence that women are inferior.
The ideology of Narcis, that he was pushing, with dubious arguments and evidence was of women’s inferiority. He began the speech with a claim that the fact that 90% of prisoners across the world were male was a sign of male oppression and even a criminalisation of masculinity. I challenge this at 57 minutes suggesting that there are many other interpretations – we could be raising men badly, there that is a dearth of good male role models and a lot of absent fathers which could create acting out, we have no initiation for young men, unlike traditional cultures (the Masai say “If you do not initiate your young men, they will burn down your village”). And I ask which things currently illegal would he make legal. Ram suggests that duelling might be as an example of a masculine way to settle differences which has become criminalised. The obvious problem with that is that right and might or being good in a fight (to get Dr Seussy) are not the same. I’ve wondered if the secret act, that Narcis might feel should be legal is when a man feels compelled to take a women he should do so, without repercussion.
I’ve done some research on Kashmiri Shaivism, not a lot I admit but it seems to have aspects in common with monotheistic religions, and this might include an elevation of the male over the female which is distinct from traditions which place more emphasis on non-dualism. The Kashmir area between India and Pakistan is quite possibly one of the most patriarchally dominated geographical areas on earth – ‘honour’ killings are not uncommon and the biggest sexual abuse scandal involving young women in the UK in recent years involved men from this culture (though Islamic). Or maybe the elevation of the masculine is an interpretation by Narcis, raised perhaps in Eastern European Catholicism. The influence of his early teacher of tantra and yoga, Gregorian Bivolau, who is on Europol’s most wanted list for the crimes of sexual abuse and human trafficking, in Finland and France. His study of Hesychast Orthodox Christianity. Was Narcis himself indoctrinated? I don’t know. I do believe that the culture of male superiority and a deep lack of respect for the feminine, for nature is in the teachings I experienced and not simply errant actions by staff members. I totally accept that this is likely to have been much emphasised on a retreat aimed specifically on examining gender. But I’d be surprised if it wasn’t implicit elsewhere. I had the strong sense of an accumulated body of knowledge being held and passed at Agama – and it is out of a similar respect for knowledge, for legacy that makes me challenge what has been learned. Any rebirth of Agama or teaching by those studied would in my view be wise include careful contemplation of the philosophy they learned. And me, I’ve learned to trust my feminine, my ‘inner knowing’ a bit more.