Stripping The Gurus

[3bob]

...btw there are many true Gurus or spiritual teachers, but the bad apples get most of the press. A true guru is also like a mirror that can reflect back what we may need to see from someone else (so to speak) since our minds are so incredibly clever at playing hide and seek with themselves.

 

Om

[squib]

Appeals to the adolescent anti-authoritarian, anti-guru lobby, quite a big niche market now, must say this gentleman shows no balance in his reports what so ever, he has a particular vehemence for Ken Wilber for instance, he is a cultural buffoon in many ways. Collects only negative reports which is his niche and serves them up tabloid style, quite effective for his purpose which is a mockery of anything Guru ( with the large G) or anyone who claims to stand above or represent anything other than the usual boring, limited, secular, egalitarian, safe vantage point.

Edited March 2, 2010 by squib

[Enishi]

Appeals to the adolescent anti-authoritarian, anti-guru lobby, quite a big niche market now, must say this gentleman shows no balance in his reports what so ever, he has a particular vehemence for Ken Wilber for instance, he is a cultural buffoon in many ways. Collects only negative reports which is his niche and serves them up tabloid style, quite effective for his purpose which is a mockery of anything Guru ( with the large G) or anyone who claims to stand above or represent anything other than the usual boring, limited, secular, egalitarian, safe vantage point.

 

My feelings are similar to yours. The secular egalitarian view causes numerous problems of its own, but unfortunately, anyone who points this out gets labelled as a dark age, fascist, sexist theocrat by Randi/Dawkins materialist fundamentalist group.

 

The superhuman moral standards which I mentioned earlier has two bad aspects. Either decent teachers are ignored because they charge a small sum or don't have nice words for every internet junkie who bashes them. Or on the other hand, people build up their guru whom they assume to be enlightened to such a superhuman level that they rationalize blatantly immoral actions like those of Sai Baba, or are permanently devastated when their perceptions get brought back down to earth.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Enishi

[voidisyinyang]

Appeals to the adolescent anti-authoritarian, anti-guru lobby, quite a big niche market now, must say this gentleman shows no balance in his reports what so ever, he has a particular vehemence for Ken Wilber for instance, he is a cultural buffoon in many ways. Collects only negative reports which is his niche and serves them up tabloid style, quite effective for his purpose which is a mockery of anything Guru ( with the large G) or anyone who claims to stand above or represent anything other than the usual boring, limited, secular, egalitarian, safe vantage point.

 

Ken Wilber's an idiot:

 

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol12/articles/epi-justice4.shtml

 

Unfortunately even the successful grand theorist Ken Wilber falls into the trap of advocating linear western evolution based on a deterministic brain model that does not fully process the findings of Pribram's resonance analysis.(118) Wilber subsequently incorrectly portrays indigenous cultures as inferior and backward-i.e. claiming that their sustainable indigenous knowledge systems are merely accidents reflecting their lack Western technology. Ironically the central text of Tibetan Buddhism, a philosophy from which Wilber draws heavily, commonly called "The Book of the Dead," has its origins in the indigenous Bon culture and is literally translated as "Liberation by Hearing in the Intermediate State."(119) Wilber criticizes social theorists for "eulogizing" tribal cultures, when in fact currently 4 to 5,000 of the 6,000 human cultures are indigenous, still existing with distinct languages, but extremely threatened by corporate state elite policies. There is extensive evidence of indigenous cultures commonly interacting in a reciprocal relationship with the environment as a conscious value system. The outstanding examples of unbalanced indigenous development patterns that Wilber incorrectly suggests are the norm, are due to particular breaks in those cultures from extreme influences (like dramatic climate change and colonialism). Wilber does not recognize the fact that there has been a strong backlash against indigenous research, precisely because of its psychological threat to the linear western worldview. His use of Hawaii to explain his theory of holons is an inaccurate portrayal of genocidal U.S. imperialism-in fact he claims the contrary occurred.(120)

[RyanO]

squib and Enishi, I respect your opinions and think I see what you're saying.

 

The problem with this book, as well as the problem with atheists like Dawkins, is that they tear down these exalted figures with a certain amount of glee, but then don't have much meaningful to add.

 

It's easy to criticize, but much harder to create.

[squib]

The secular egalitarian view causes numerous problems of its own, but unfortunately, anyone who points this out gets labelled as a dark age, fascist, sexist theocrat by Randi/Dawkins materialist fundamentalist group.

Yes, it's quite a silly point of view and refuses to inspect it's own limits, which is part of good science, there is only the ordinary dude, with his or her hard wiring, (brain and body)and anything other that that must be fraud, deceit or self-deceit. It becomes increasingly fundamentalist, un-cultured (in other words completely ignorant and even contemptuous of anything other than blunt logical arguments for Any human activity) and evangelical, even more than that, taken to it's own conclusion any activity that would move beyond secular attainments would be taboo and ultimately illegal. As has already happened in some countries

[Owledge]

Most of you might have heard the term "religious zealot". But who has ever heard the term "scientific zealot"?

Many times when the former criticize science, they simply criticize the religious aspects of science, so it's a kind of self-critique. They are the same bunch of people.

Stand between both fronts of the discussion and it might seem as if you're making both sides your enemy, but actually you only become the fools' enemy.

 

 

Hi Kate, That saying of, "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely" has been around but imo it is actually not true, which is because absolute power as one with truth will absolutely burn up any corruption or untruth, thus only relative power or truths can be corrupt in such a sense. Of course if one has no faith in an "absolute" such as alluded to as the Tao that can not be spoken of - or corrupted, then such a point is meaningless.

 

Bob

 

I, too, don't agree. That saying appealed to me first, but when I simply thought it through using the scientific method (including examining real-life examples and possibilities), it started to appear being a means of perpetuating a pessimistic world view.

I mean... just for fun... do the inversion: Isn't it very likely that people who achieve great power and use it in a harmful way were of unethical character in the first place? That only this mindset enabled them to reach that much power?

 

Also, absolute power is a construct of the mind. What is absolute?! So that leaves power in various degrees. And because even the most lovely and warmhearted peaceful person has a certain degree of power, the question is simply how much power you can deal with. You have to learn handling it responsibly.

 

 

P.S. (pun scriptum):

@RyanO

Are you talking about Richard Dorkins?

Edited March 7, 2010 by Hardyg

[RyanO]

 

P.S. (pun scriptum):

@RyanO

Are you talking about Richard Dorkins?

 

 

The one and only

[Birch]

Yes I guess I threw that first saying out there too fast, and I did also add that idea about relative power. It just happened that the idea of "corruption" hit me upside the head right this minute and that I'm wondering if "corruption" is just an effect of power itself (of any kind, just to throw it back again to explain I'm fine with all the definitions.)and nothing at all to do with character. I will have to go contemplate it.

[Owledge]

I think there is a strong connection between the misuse of power and fears.

[Wanderer]

I've always felt it necessary to question authority, even (and especially) the so-called 'spiritual'. This area of endeavor - like politics - is rife with misconception, misrespresentation, and almost certainly, exagerration. When I first posted this exact topic 2 years ago some here took offense at my broaching the subject, as if I had slaughtered the sacred cow of spiritual idealism.

 

While everyone is entitled to their opinion it's good to see that the people here (on this thread) are more mature in how they handle unpleasant topics.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/6592-stripping-the-gurus/

[ralis]

I think this sums the authoritarian quite nicely and furthermore, all the so called truth that authoritarians promote.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

 

ralis

[altiora]

I think westerners are hugely misinformed about the guru relationship. The guru relationship was never about authoritarianism or control. At the end of the day, the relationship is a contract: the pupil and teacher reach agreement on the relationship; any party can terminate if he or she wants. The ultimate aim of the guru is to lead the pupil on to the path of independence, so that he or she is able guided by the inner Guru.

 

The Indian literature identifies criteria by which the pupil should assess whether the person is a genuine guru; and also criteria by which the guru can assess whether the pupil is genuine. The literature does this because it makes no bones about the fact that there are fake gurus and fake pupils around -- thousands of years ago and as now. The literature is quite explicit about the very nasty fate that fake gurus will endure after life (something the self-proclaimed sifu, lama, and masters, and teachers on this site better just pay note). The leading astray of a person's spiritual development is the most heinous thing one can do to another.

 

Now that there are fake gurus, doesn't mean that there is no role for the guru relationship. Just as there are fake school teachers, one would be stupid to say "therefore we don't need any school teachers, because I'm born perfect you see and we all have our own path, blah blah blah"). Next to a belief in a spiritual existence, the need for the guru is present in one form or the other in all spiritual traditions.

 

If you are sincere, have worked hard, are humble, and have a true desire to learn and study, then your teacher will come -- and not necessarily wearing exotic robes and titles, and certainly not demanding money and sex from you. When the teacher does come, you can't believe your luck, and suddenly all those desires about winning the lottery etc seem like childish daydreams.

Edited March 21, 2010 by altiora

[ralis]

I think westerners are hugely misinformed about the guru relationship. The guru relationship was never about authoritarianism or control. At the end of the day, the relationship is a contract: the pupil and teacher reach agreement on the relationship; any party can terminate if he or she wants. The ultimate aim of the guru is to lead the pupil on to the path of independence, so that he or she is able guided by the inner Guru.

 

The Indian literature identifies criteria by which the pupil should assess whether the person is a genuine guru; and also criteria by which the guru can assess whether the pupil is genuine. The literature does this because it makes no bones about the fact that there are fake gurus and fake pupils around -- thousands of years ago and as now. The literature is quite explicit about the very nasty fate that fake gurus will endure after life (something the self-proclaimed sifu, lama, and masters, and teachers on this site better just pay note). The leading astray of a person's spiritual development is the most heinous thing one can do to another.

 

Now that there are fake gurus, doesn't mean that there is no role for the guru relationship. Just as there are fake school teachers, one would be stupid to say "therefore we don't need any school teachers, because I'm born perfect you see and we all have our own path, blah blah blah"). Next to a belief in a spiritual existence, the need for the guru is present in one form or the other in all spiritual traditions.

 

If you are sincere, have worked hard, are humble, and have a true desire to learn and study, then your teacher will come -- and not necessarily wearing exotic robes and titles, and certainly not demanding money and sex from you. When the teacher does come, you can't believe your luck, and suddenly all those desires about winning the lottery etc seem like childish daydreams.

 

 

Humility is nothing but slavery. I suggest you read my previous link.

 

ralis

[altiora]

Humility is nothing but slavery. I suggest you read my previous link.

 

ralis

 

 

I did. I disagree. Or I should say I disagee with Nietzsche (you might like to read a decent biography on him to realise how miserable his miserable 'philosophy" made him). Humility is what made Socrates admit he knew nothing, and made him strive for the truth. I think you'll find that humility is the starting point for every one who actually makes spiritual progress.

 

maybe you could try some humility yourself to see whether it's slavery, rather than citing 19 th century writings. Maybe you'd see the secret that most people find in humility -- it paradoxically leads to freedom.

 

Arrogance isn't mastery, that's for sure.

Edited March 21, 2010 by altiora

[tyler zambori]

I think westerners are hugely misinformed about the guru relationship. The guru relationship was never about authoritarianism or control. At the end of the day, the relationship is a contract: the pupil and teacher reach agreement on the relationship; any party can terminate if he or she wants. The ultimate aim of the guru is to lead the pupil on to the path of independence, so that he or she is able guided by the inner Guru.

 

The Indian literature identifies criteria by which the pupil should assess whether the person is a genuine guru; and also criteria by which the guru can assess whether the pupil is genuine. The literature does this because it makes no bones about the fact that there are fake gurus and fake pupils around -- thousands of years ago and as now. The literature is quite explicit about the very nasty fate that fake gurus will endure after life (something the self-proclaimed sifu, lama, and masters, and teachers on this site better just pay note). The leading astray of a person's spiritual development is the most heinous thing one can do to another.

 

Now that there are fake gurus, doesn't mean that there is no role for the guru relationship. Just as there are fake school teachers, one would be stupid to say "therefore we don't need any school teachers, because I'm born perfect you see and we all have our own path, blah blah blah"). Next to a belief in a spiritual existence, the need for the guru is present in one form or the other in all spiritual traditions.

 

If you are sincere, have worked hard, are humble, and have a true desire to learn and study, then your teacher will come -- and not necessarily wearing exotic robes and titles, and certainly not demanding money and sex from you. When the teacher does come, you can't believe your luck, and suddenly all those desires about winning the lottery etc seem like childish daydreams.

 

 

What literature, specifically, is that?

[tyler zambori]

I did. I disagree. humility is what made Socrates admit he knew nothing, and made him strive for the truth. i think you'll find that humility is the starting point for every one who actually makes spiritual progress.

 

Arrogance isn't mastery, that's for sure.

 

I managed to get one without having humility.

 

But being willing to strive for truth seems somehow more basic than

having humility towards another person.

[ralis]

I did. I disagree. Or I should say I disagee with Nietzsche (you might like to read a decent biography on him to realise how miserable his miserable 'philosophy" made him). Humility is what made Socrates admit he knew nothing, and made him strive for the truth. I think you'll find that humility is the starting point for every one who actually makes spiritual progress.

 

maybe you could try some humility yourself to see whether it's slavery, rather than citing 19 th century writings. Maybe you'd see the secret that most people find in humility -- it paradoxically leads to freedom.

 

Arrogance isn't mastery, that's for sure.

 

Been there done that! It is not about being arrogant either. I have been through all the contrived trips that people impose on themselves.

 

Being authentic is my path.

 

ralis

[ralis]

What literature, specifically, is that?

 

That is his contrived view.

 

ralis

[altiora]

What literature, specifically, is that?

 

 

Being of the Shaivite school, the Kularnava Tantra, Mahayoga Vijnana, Tantraloka, Viveka Chudamani and Shivadrishti detail the characteristics a guru should exhibit and exhort the aspirant pupil to judge the guru by these and ultimately to use their "gut feeling".

 

But not difficult to just do search online to find more accessible documents:

http://www.bvml.org/SBBTM/qoabg.htm

 

There's no esoterism involved. It's all just common sense.

Edited March 21, 2010 by altiora

[altiora]

That is his contrived view.

 

ralis

 

 

Thought you said you weren't arrogant?

[tyler zambori]

Thought you said you weren't arrogant?

 

Oh! Oh! Judging!

 

That isn't very humble!

[tyler zambori]

Being of the Shaivite school, the Kularnava Tantra, Mahayoga Vijnana, Tantraloka, Viveka Chudamani and Shivadrishti detail the characteristics a guru should exhibit and exhort the aspirant pupil to judge the guru by these and ultimately to use their "gut feeling".

 

But not difficult to just do search online to find more accessible documents:

http://www.bvml.org/SBBTM/qoabg.htm

 

There's no esoterism involved. It's all just common sense.

 

I don't see any common sense in that document.

 

It's all Hindu Fundamentalist Hogwash, sorry to say,

especially the bit about the teacher being well versed

in Hindu scriptures. But then I don't think much of Hindu

scriptures.

 

I am not Buddhist either, but Alexander Berzin's book

on having a healthy relationship with a spiritual teacher

is a whole lot better.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/group.html_1305527811.html

[suninmyeyes]

Reply to original post,

ive checked that link,its good that stuff comes out as it has a potential to make us more aware.Now wherther that stuff is true or not remains a question.

Who to trust?

Only myself.

I have been learning from a teacher in past for some years and learned things it would otherwise took longer to figure out by myself.Having a teacher or guru or shifu...is common sense to me,as its common sense that if you wanna be a doctor or engeneer you go and learn from people that know the skill,speeds up the process.

 

Saying all that, its hard work this kind of teaching .Best to learn just to take what you need and leave the rest, as everyone has some sort of personality.

To be more smart.

And people/guru worship i find not my thing at all.Although i can kind of see the concept behind it to work for some in some ways.

Anyways interesting to read the link for a bit

[dwai]

I like the fact that people point out the human weaknesses of our gurus.

It helps keep us from getting as attached.

Gurus are simply people that have something we think we need.

All they have is a different perspective.

There is nothing else to have.

Getting attached to the guru just gives you something else to have to shed.

Books like this help that.

 

Gurus are not responsible for aspirants being manipulated. The Aspirants are.

A Guru is nothing other than a teacher. The whole Guru-Shishya dynamic is misunderstood and abused in the West.

The relation between a Guru and Shishya is many things rolled into one. There is the Father-child relationship, the best friend relationship, the soul-mate relationship, the brotherly relationship, the Mother-child relationship...

 

Another thing that many fail to understand or acknowledge is that Gurus are human too...they are not above human frailties. Given that they have bodies, they have human needs to. They do need to eat, sleep, defecate, etc. Similarly they do need to address basic animal drives as well, such as sexual desire, etc. As is true with any serious seeker, they can either choose to transform/use these primal drives towards cultivation or succumb to them.

 

Classical Indian texts (such as the Puranas) refer to several sages who struggled to overcome lust, anger, etc. They were still considered highly accomplished Sages, but not perfect, because they were human. And the stories highlighted their inner struggle to transcend the primal urges/emotions/needs, etc.

 

As a non-westerner, I find it hard to understand the antipathy of Westerners towards Teachers. Are you (as in Western seekers) so arrogant as to think that you can achieve spiritual goals without any guidance?!?

 

It is true that we have an inner guide (Atman) which will provide genuine intuitive knowledge (Prajna), but there is a need for those who have gone before us to show us the way around potential pitfalls and dangers of certain aspects of spriritual practice.

 

Those who have meditated will have come across inner conflicts and demons that had to be overcome. The Guru's role is to provide guidance to these seekers, in such times of need. Some might be able to overcome these phases on their own, but many do not or struggle and wander about aimlessly because they didn't have anyone to correct them or even compassionately listen to them (and understand/explain certain things).