-O-

So its not the world, its me. Dude, same thing - same flaw error correction mentality. I studied Jalus - and in those teachings I was told that my true nature would emerge as I came "clear"- that as I entered this world my nature became somehow distorted... I was taken aback as I didn't enter into the studies with the idea that I was somehow inherently flawed - but rather that my perseption was changing and the studies would help to develope that... so perhaps the perspective isn't flawed but rather it is an intial state of an ever evolving and changing, meleable awareness.... no error correction. But any teacher I've had,(ussualy during signs of independance) it eventually creeps in that there is something inherently wrong with either the person or the world which we are setting out to fix - and Buddhism is no exception. nor is taoism.

I think the insight youare talking about is understood in western thought without the need of magic - its called projection and transferance.... But back to the point about master who have acted badly, wick-wetting, drinking etc.... I think this thread intially started out regarding the flaws ound in people who were put upon high pedistals because they were considered "beyond the eluded masses" and proved others wise over time. Western thought by no means is absent of self-investigation, perhaps in its religions, but it is the west where critical thought, scientific method emerged because there was the understanding the "selves" get in the way of truth. Also regarding this idea that the west is bent on "flawed world" views - it is prevalent in any religion - buddha says we are all deluded and suffering thus need to be fixed, Taoist say we have fallen from our true nature (or fallen from nature) and thus need to find our way back.... the "flawed world" "you are all F(*&ked up" has nothing to do with culture, philosophy or truth and everything to do with the mechanics of leading and manipulating mass groups of people - trust me on this one I am a soon to be x-marketer (leaving simply because of that kind of BS). I say mechanics because it eventually regardless of good intentions or value of a system - this sort of idea eventually creeps in.... I think precisly because there is an assumption that the people who have attained are now thought to be somehow different in their fundemental make-up then the rest of us and at some point this difference has to be expressed (because this difference is the very thing we are trying to attain)... then this leads to an asumption that at first you are flawed and after participating you will be fixed.... so an example of how a flaw in the relationship creeps into the teaching and then is passed on from generation to generation... but hey these teachings are a continuous mind-stream, one built upon the other, time tested and WAY better than anything new... (cognitive flaw that if it is is old it is better).

Sure, in a sense, but you are also venerating the specific accomplishments of the Guru which you yourself hope to imbibe from them through their teachings and their mind pointing through energy. Do you see the connection here? Your statement could be seen as an example of Kate's.

That made me laugh. I like the honesty. Oh... oh well. I was onced robbed - or attempted to be robbed of my passport by two traffic cops in Cambodia - they were pretty much judge, jury and prosecutioner... and not of any particularly rare western type of mentality. (it all ended fine - I was pretty much 2 feet taller then both and was not willing to back down - and they weren't willing to shoot me - so we simply parted ways after a few minutes- in fact we even shook hands).

A decade or two ago I came across an interview with Joseph Campbell where he talked about the differences of Eastern and Western ventures into the mystery which rings true for me... he talked of the Grail mythology where Arthur and the knights reach the edge of the forest (the mystery). Aruthur tells them (or was it percival) that he has found the grail - it is in there (the forest). He tells them to split up and enter the forest each alone to search for the grail. Campbell mentioned that in Eastern mythology this is different - the leader says "follow me, I have found the path, I can show you how to cross the stream" then guides them along the route they have found, where Western mythology it is more like "I've found it - it is somewhere in there - now go find it for yourself". I've spent sometime in the East and found the family dynamic and goals of the young to hinge off of service or honor to the family. Their accomplshiment / achievement is to be added to the achivements of the family - sort of pooling resources, and there is great respect and subservviance to the head of the family. Where I find my expereince in the west is that we are expected one day to leave thy fathers home, set forth on our own to build our own, independant home... sort of "go beyond". Thus I think the emphasis on individuality in the West. I think appropriate behaviour expected from students (bow at the feet etc) stems from a cultural foundation which is different in the west. Its based on this family dynamic - so it is expected that you already know these rules and have some refined skill with them - when you enter into the relationship (and how to morderate and be responsible or balanced with in it). Tthese rules are sometimes counter intuitive to the Westerner because of cultural differences. We sort of have to learn the finer details of the emotional monitoring/balancing while being in the relationship. Baptism by fire. I think either has their merits but have found people accustom to this type of Eastern relationship either by culture or through things like martial arts tend to eventually reject the Western foundation as neurotic, flippant, disrespectful etc. and it's not - it's just different. I also think nuances in Eastern teachings tend to aggravate this difference which adds more difficulty/confusion with western students (and the student get blamed for it). One being the Guru mediations and protocols (meditatons ont he Guru etc.) to the western mind - whose only similar context for this type of activity sort of the Chirstian "have you given yourself to Jesus" sort of thing - so the intial response is more of a a religious or godly worship. With time this may iron out and when the dust has clear there may have been some lessons of mind - but was it really just learning the nuances of a cultural difference - after all - any activity given enough dedicated effort will eventually be a lesson in mind.

Ok.

I don't believe that no one is worthy to teach - nor do I believe teachers should not be respected. I do believe that the guru-student relationship has its flaws and has much room for improvement and that the relationship has not evolved because it is not challenged nor its flaws confronted because of the very nature of the relationship. And then these shortcomings are preserved as the students become the teachers and the flaws become part of the teaching. Actually I think it may be being challenged in the West and is then met with the prejudice that western minds are so F#$)ked up and westerns are disrespectful. I see your posts allot and it appears to me you are well read - but not well thought out. Seems a regurgitation of rented knowledge - drunk on the kool-aid of your teachers. Not meant to bash at you but rather a challenge to express what you have assimilated - have individuated. I would rather jump out of a plane without a parachute to KNOW that I can not fly then live in delusional belief that I can - a belief that is there simply because "teachers says so". To each their own and to you, with a raised glass of kool-aid for you, I say "Cheers".

Okay, semantics, they are important.... I'll qualify my statement... an avoidance to, or distortion of the comprehension of reality. Initially I was going to post something along the lines of my daughter peeing the bed would then be "magical" (mistaking unstructured intent as "not-conscious" intent)- but I read this again... So I am reading "unstructured intent" as not really having a clear view of how the intent lead to the result - thus it seems "magical". Is this accurate?

You drink too much cool-aid.

Dude, there have been way more horrendous acts done (and being done) in the name of "religion" than wick-wetting and drinking. I can't think of a "religion" that is free of horrendous acts being done in its name.... both on a personal level or an instituitional level. At least with Trungpa it is a man's shortcomings conflicting with an ideological role bestowed upon him (not condoning) - this at least can be realted to as people who have made mistakes and ran through delusional dramas in the past... What I find horrifiing is peoples belief that their religions' horrendous actions are "right" on an institutional or fundamental level. One of those acts is to claim their leadership and representatives are speaking on behalf of the divine or are representatives of the divine and thus somehow "above" its following. How insulting to the divinity in each and everyone of us... and how avoidant of the flaws their representation are capable of. I think the need to strip Gurus is there because on some level we are being sold that the people we are seeking guidance from are somehow better, more advanced, "higher" then the rest of us; that they are doing us a favour.. sic

@ GiH How do you define "magic"? What is your understanding of "magic"? I think things which allow for avoidance or distortion of reality as potentially harmful and have seen many times in individuals lives many damaging consequences because of a belief in magic. I am willing to entertain that your definition may be different than mine which renders a belief in magic to be harmless.

Or are they the natural progression of neurosis left unchecked by "quieting" critical thinking and ignoring lessons learned through trial & error over the course of ones life? Said elsewhere - phenomena and awareness cannot be separated, objectivity is an approximation.... perhaps "powers of the mind" are delusion born of robbing our own natural and learned means of finding critical approximations. Maybe experiencing these things first hand would then only be an indication of how far the neurosis has progressed.

I'm married to a conspiracy camper, I also fly RC helicopters. My wife, upset at the money I've spent one day says to me "you buy into this hobby because they are all so phalic (a diatribe of how subliminal messages in advertsing - an apparently industrial design follows ).... look at it! It's a penis with propellers!" I challenged her to investigate . After great consideration and persuasion I found her to be correct... now a piece of the big picture includes an arrangement where she gets to spend as much at Tiffany's as I do on my heli's... (although I may have to have her fact check her inital investigation once and a while) Sorry off topic

...Hum, or are these "powers of the mind ideas" really a neurosis presented as a cure?

I often wonder with conspiracies... is all of this stuff really dictated by some man behind a mask (or secret society) or is it really just a chaotic pattern of human nature taking on a seemingly order structure....? 'specially with things like "use of peer pressure" to control the masses... I think anyone with kids could see allot of the tactics of "secret societies" emerge naturally in the playground over time... on the other hand maybe it is all true, I dunno...

I have found people who us the terms Crazy Wisdom or Coyote Teachings tend to use it to dodge accountability to the people around them. Sort of a pee wee herman "I meant to do that"...

_/|\_ Thanks for that post.

The second one isn't Max. As for the first one it was very commercial. One thing about business acumen.. it is very good at organizational development and predefining boundries. It's generally clear cut or you end up refunding money or being sued. For this I think it is not only NOT a negative thing if people go commercial but also allows some 'teacher to student' accountability within the relationship in a way that we are all familiar with - a simple transaction... but of course emotion and pyschlogy seems to make its way in inevidably.

The clock keeps time on its own, and the socks do not put themselves on the feet are fine and good examples on interdependence however there is not one object, tangible or intangible which can be obeserved independant of the obeserver. The obeserver comes into being when awareness posits itself (awareness) into the intention of "being aware", creating consciousness. Concious observation can not be independent of the observer. All things (in consciousness) are interdependant on it.... thus all things "I" observe are interwined and mingled with the "I" that obeserves. This can lead to a realization that "I" am everything and this IS so within the action of observing, but is not so in some magical "I am you, I am the world, the world is I - we are all one". This is only the intuition of the distinction of the above dynamic - "I" can not observe independantly of "I". As this distinction emerges there is first the feeling that everything experienced is the self or connected to the self somehow. When it arrives there is the distinction that all experience is inescapably the appearances of stuff in conciousness dependant on the I - (and the "I" is dependant on stuff observed)... So anything and everything we expereince in life including "Golden Light Bodies" experiences are the appearances of stuff within consciousness which without consciousness there would not be the faculty to expereince anything - so it is through "I" that everything is experienced. Dependant origination has nothing to do with the actual existence of an object in the world being magically dependant on anything else and everything to do with the existence of stuff WITHIN OUR AWARENESS being dependant on consciouness. When the intuitive distinction gives way to clarity it is far less magical - its an acknowledgement that all this stuff is wrapped up in my own inescapable subectivity. This is liberating as now I can, through the appearances of stuff come to an even more pervasive distinction of self . The self is revealed through the appearances of stuff but only after they are acknowledged for what they are - appearances dependant on self. ...when all things I have ever expereinced are all colored by "self" or made of that stuff then it is pointless to draw lines of this and that... because the "this" and the "that" in my arguments are appearances that only reveal myself to me (just as the only intrinsic value of this post is to reveal -O- to -O-)... they rise dependant on my the act of observing. The distinction of Self and object can then only be expereinced through the action of observing along with the disitnction that the objects are appearances dependant on "SELF". With this one can then find a new threshold of liberation - "becoming" (I AM). It is the liberation not of, but from SELF. And this is felt as "I AM" (with no definition to follow). And all sort of wise platitudes flow out of that like. "We are everything..." , liberation is in in the NOW (because observation is not reflection and can only exist in the moment it is occuring), unlearn, truth is undefinable, the way cannot be defined etc... And this "I AM" need not be elevated to some mystical level as it is no different than Satre's waiter "Being a Waiter". And this "becoming" can also emerge intuitively without clarity breaking through as "my higher self" and a dichotomy of lower self and higher self etc.... When really the lower self was the "I" before redefinition and the higher self is the redefined "I". So have we really escaped SELF? ( A new twist on Satre's assertion that the only true act of freedom is to take our own lives) ... and in the end all of that too will be dependant experience revealing self with no more importance than how your selection of TV or fine food reveals personal taste.

I was also taught (Buddhist) that there are three types of transmissions. 1) Written (so this board is a form of transmitting) 2) Oral 3) Passed directly from the teacher(energetic). It seems that people only ever focuss on type 3 which causes confusion. Transmission is just that - transmitting a teaching from one person to another. ...and that can be in written form (like a book), oral form (like a lecture and mantra), or enegetic. So... high school is a form of transmission.

I'd like to add my 2 cents ($0.01.9 USD - take it for its worth). Although I'd like to think that spiritual study should be akin to say taking a sculpting class or learning a trade; where our teachers are people like ourselves, only they have a bit of knowledge that we don't and we spend some time together to transfer that knowledge; it's not. It might be the case with something like martial arts or Tai Chi because it is a skill with precise definitions which is being past on. But with something like spirituallity and meditation there isn't really that easily identifiable, precise distinguishable quaity to it... especially when you are completley new to the topic. And it is also important to note that spiritiaulty and meditation is about addressing the the very faculties in which we expereince reality. If the teacher, standing in an empty room, says "this room is full" and the student clearly sees that it isn't then the student has a choice to make. 1) To trust his own senses - his own faculties of persecption and say "No, it is empty". This renders the student/teacher relationship pointless and also leaves the teacher powerless to affect a change in the student. If you are not willing to be guided then no teacher can help you. Kay Gar Ney ("what to do?"). To say we have to decern for ourselves if the teacher is good or true is like the above, We are the ones without the knowledge so we are the ones without the ability to gauge the truth/falsehood of a teacher.... (perhaps the room is full after all) 2) The second choice is to trust the teacher, that their words have more authority than our own ability to discern, take their word for it, and set out to be able to see the room full just as the teacher does... after all this is what we are there for. But this leaves us in a very vulnerable situation. At this point the teacher is given the power to decide, define and qualify reality for us. To take on a teacher is to hand over this great authority, to put the core of our own well being into another persons hands.... to essentially hand over our own sovereignty to another person. Very dangerous, but nessesarry if we are to gain the rewards., 3) Be somewhere between one and two. Maybe say to yourself I will trust them on this one point, but not that one. However this is no different thant choice number one because we do not have the knowledge to know if one point is correct and the other is not, if we did we would be the teacher. In the end it is only shooting ourself in the foot. To really gain anything from a student/teacher relationship number two is really the only commited choice. This creates relationship of inequality where the student has their foundation of reality at stake and the teacher really has nothing but time and maybe being bothered at risk. You will not find an inbalance of power within a relationship like this when taking a sculpting class or studying a trade... or for that matter with University studies or hell even a marriage.... in fact the only relationship I can think of that is similar to this is one between a therapist and patient. However there are two things that factor into a theraputic relationship which are not present in a student/teacher relationship (spiritual studet/teacher). One a governing body which oversees the conduct of the therapist, a social/cultural understanding that the therapist is simply doing their job and is a flawed human like us, but with an education - just like a doctor or electrician. These two thing estabilish certain boundries & understandings and make sure they are met. With spiritual studies in the west it is wide open for abuse. And the abuse doesn't have to be some extreme thing like sexual abuse or financial robbery. Simple emotion immaturity of the teacher can have detrimental effects on the student. Even small indescresions which would be meaningless in any other context or to students which have taken choice 1 or 3 - could be damaging for the truely dedicated. (note I do not mean people who are worshipping, I mean people who are simply, fully commited to learn from the person). This is simply because, if the we take the stance that it is a flaw in the personality of the teacher we could be robbing himself of valuable teachings - so if we are going truly going to get the most out of the relationship then we must take the words as truth. This leaves the responsibility of bounderies in the relationship in the hands of the one which has nothing at stake, the teacher. Add to that comments like "the transmission makes it all possible, without it it would not be possible", "this is the only method which will do..." adds gas to the fire. And as the student gains more success in the teachings the balance tips even further and the little indescressions become more damaging. Enough of pointing out the obvious... I have had two excellent teacher. Excellent meaning I have gain allot from the teachings - not nessessarily excellant as is "they are excellant teachers". One, who teacher thosands of new people a year (like 8-9,000 people a year for the last thirty years) is very clear with the boundaries. You will not have access to him, you will not becomes friends, when you time with him is up you are on your own - but you are certain that the time you have with him, he will pass on absolutely everything he can during that time. Conversations only ever pertain to the teachings. He doesn't where headdresses, or robes as this is exactly what people DO NOT NEED. There is very little contervercy with his students - he doesn not have people bashing him or attempting to discredit him at every turn. There is always some naysayers - but in that camp it is a very low murmur. Students see him not only as a great teacher but a flawed husband, father, dude that rents movies and might be a little to arrogant. And it is because seeing his flaws are encouraged - he teaches thorugh his past mistakes. You don't hear from him about his grand abilities or accomplishements, you hear about his mistakes and what he learned from it - this is not feigned humility but rather by design to address the inbalance of power in the situation. Facilitators were staff, not "friends" or students. They had contracts and were paid. The other teacher had a huge wealth of knowledge and extremely effective teachings. He called all his students "friends", seminars were facilitated through the student body. He wore robes and fancy hats because "this is what the people needed". He talked about his accomplishements, his and his teacher and his students great spiritual skills, about looking into other worlds without any relevence to the teaching at hand (except to bolster "acceptance" of the teachings). He too was very sincere about teaching you as much as he could, and was also very compassionate etc. He would have tea and socialise with his students. And he had allot of students which got upset with him, allot of drama surrounded him and allot of people were hurt by his actions. The main difference between him the the other example is he set no appropraite boundaries in the relationships and in fact allot of his actions and words muddled up what would be assumed boundaries. Bad guru relationships are not always about unethical behaviour or hypocrisy - but do always result from teachers (whether they admit they are or not) not putting in place and monitoring appropriate boundaries in what is a very unbalanced relationship. Adn this happens because they enjoy those relatiohships. They are all loving and very safe for the teacher - if the relationship goes bad you can just banish the student. Which is the next issue which arrises - because of the inbalance in the relationship - the indescresions are never confronted in a real way - so what starts out as something small soon becomes "corrupt" behaviour. Anyway.... the only way I found, for myself, which was a good approach was to remind myself that the only power and authority a spiritual teacher has in my life is the authority I have given then through my choice to make them important in my life. If they disrespect the sovereingty I have placed honorably in their hands, I can simply take it back. And in knowing that, I could take choice 2, gain some great stuff and know that if things go wrong I have the power and responsiblity to reclaim my sovereingty through my choices. Of course teachers will see any stand on behalf of the students sovereingty as being defiant and disrespectul - but this only happens to teachers which don't live up to the honorable position they have been placed in by their students. If we don't, as students make this stand then spiritual teaching will never evolve as most of its traditions are based in cultures from 2,000 years ago and have IMHO stagnated.

Deep bows... _/\_

(I'm in love with your avatar)

This implies a vertical heiarchy with an all mighty sitting on the top of the pyramid... which when faced with confrontation or critisim can easily lean on authority as a means to avoid accountability - or simply push the accountability back down the latter... perhaps a structure which is less patriarchal? Sure... but ulimately it is Consequence which decideds the grade. Many seek and create the expereinces they wish and avoid /deny the ones they don't - but consequence is a whole other matter. Results never lie, only our interpretations of them. Seek a master who finds/defines results by Consequence, not interpretation and you will find a master who is accountable to the Tao. You may also find he/she sits beside you, not over you.

Interesting - nothing works with out the transmission - and now a limited time offer, for only $50.... very interesting indeed.