For those who feel the religious references are from an “unnamed, vaguely Eastern-Indian spiritual philosophy”, not based in any one religion: We all know when you show a person with a sari and a mark on their forehead that it will be associated with Hinduism. Besides these obvious physical references (and Myers’ costumes of sacred saffron robes, marigold malas/leis), the terms used in the film (like “guru”, “karma” and “ashram”) are signature Hindu concepts clearly pointing to Hinduism. So, which other religion are they talking about?

Above all, the antics of Guru Pitka (Mike Myers) of ‘The Love Guru’ are a mockery of the esteemed institution of a guru, who is a highly revered spiritual teacher or master or preceptor in Hinduism and who helps remove the ignorance of the seeker and who leads one from darkness to light. The guru-sishya (teacher-disciple) relationship lies at the heart of traditional Hinduism. The Guru is often allied with the divine; and bestows spiritual knowledge totally free from selfish objectives.

On the other hand, the guru in ‘The Love Guru’ instigates a bar fight, repeatedly narrates penis jokes, mocks yoga (one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy), wears female jewelry, mocks the concept of third eye, makes disciples drink tea passed through his nose, orders alligator soup, induces elephant copulation in front of the crowd, introduces himself as “His Holiness”, lives in a lavish ashram staffed with scantily clad maids, and whose goal in life seems to appear on Oprah.

When did Hindu gurus become available “for hire”? When and who started rating them? When did shishyas (disciples) start to joining ashrams for the sole purpose to make girls like them? Which Hindu ashram organises fights of disciples with mops soaked in their guru’s urine? Which guru urinates in the midst of disciples?

Not only does the role perpetuate ingnorance of a culture that many North Americans are not familiar with, this is pure and blatant ridiculing of sacred concepts. Perhaps a massive boycott of the film is excessive, but given the costumes and overall concept of the film, Paramount would have done well to issue a disclaimer in the opening sequence that the characters and events are not based on veritable Hindu spiritual masters.

I’m also tired of this reasoning that just as long as there is some Indian person in the movie then the movie has been approved by that person, thus approved by all Indians and the movie can not be considered racist. A lot of actors of different religions and cultures from the beginning of the media age have taken roles they may not have agreed with because they wanted a part or needed the money.

I just hate the cringing feeling I get instantly at the hint of a blatantly racist movie. It’s like watching Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, or watching Birth of a Nation, or watching The Good Earth. It’s just not right and even if you don’t understand or you aren’t the culture portrayed, you should at least try to listen to the people who have a problem with it because they are forcefully going through something you luckily don’t have to deal with.