Stripping The Gurus

[3bob]

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).

 

Well said Dwai,

Btw. everything at some time or another has been abused in the west and also in the east... another way of looking at this is like being an apprentice who can become a journeyman and then do much of their own work from there. And it is basically or almost impossible to become a journeyman without getting training, which is why all the trades like electrician, mechanic, carpenter, etc. work that way!

Such is common sense regardless of those who try or have abused same.

Bob

[C T]

Well said Dwai,

 

Seconded.

[markern]

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).

 

I don`t mind teachers at all. I like teachers. I just don`t like the guru model much. Taoism don`t usually operate with guru realtionships in the same way indians do and neither do buddhists. So having a guru in the indian sense is completely unecesary to get the guidance you need to advance spiritually. THat said I can see that there are advantages to the conventional guru model for example learning surrender to the divine will through surrendering to the will of the guru whos will can be seen as an expression of the divine will or something like that. But despite some such advantages I think there are waaaaaaay to many risks to the conventional guru realtionship and the pedestal gurus are usually put on and put themselves on. Most people I ahve met that have spiritual teachers seem quite balanced and normal althoguh some are totaly messed up. Most people I have met that have a guru in the convetional sense seemed to be somehow unbalanced or irrational although many are not. They often seem to be of on some sort of trip and have left their ability to think critically not only about their guru, which is sort of ok and partially the point I guess, but in general. I think there is something to that type of relationship that although psychologically beneficial in many ways are psychologically unbalancing in more ways. At least for a lot of people. I am sure it varies. Why not just have a normal teacher. Ajhan Chan one of the most venerated Theravada teachers could have taken a more or less guru like role, Within the boundaries of being a buddhist monk at least, but chose to teach more like what Jack Kornfield calls a "spiritual friend", a guide standing on your side supporting you not above you controlling you. He was a very effective teacher despite not doing the guru thing.

 

As for westerners being critical of gurus. Make a top twenty list of indian gurus in terms of number of followers and see how many have been proven to have been unethical and abusive. Sai Baba for example is a pedophile and a trickster doing cheap magick tricks too who his followers.

 

Could you please give me some examples of were more specifically to look in the Indian texts for examples of sages with human frailties? I am very interested in the subject and would like to look more into it at a later point so some pointers would be great.

[elcaminante]

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

 

:blink:

[Pero]

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.

 

Are you kidding? You think that it doesn't matter if a Hindu Guru is or is not versed in Hindu scriptures?

You point to Berzin but Buddhist teachers also have to be well versed in Buddhist scriptures.

And it's like that everywhere, religion or more worldly life. That is common sense.

[ralis]

:blink:

 

That is a puzzling statement and completely off the mark. Cult leaders manipulate by mass hypnosis and appeal to parental needs etc. There is a lot written on this problem.

 

ralis

[That Guy]

:blink:

 

:lol:

 

If you do something you wouldn't usually do based on a lie you were told, you're a victim. You been coned, lied to etc.

 

The gurus controlled people through deceitful means, they are responsible for taking advantage of the aspirants.

 

sheesh

 

"ohh westerners this westerners that, they don't understand blah blah blah...."

 

How about YOU don't understand?

 

Us "westerners" (as you have so unjudgementally labelled us all) have nothing against teachers, teachers who con others? then why yes we do well I do anyway.

 

Here is a funny story by me:

 

Westerner: Hi i would like to learn from a Guru, but I don't know about this whole guru thing...

 

Dwai: Well! You westerners just dont understand blah blah blah....

30mins later~

Dwai: ....you wont get that far without a guru you arrogant westerner.

 

Westerner: Oh wow, now that you have explained what a guru is to my western mind, I guess having one is ok and essential.

 

1 year later~

 

Dwai: Why hello westerner how are you?

 

Westerner: well... I'm ok... but... my guru... I followed his every word like I was suppose to for my spiritual development, our relationship was like the Father-child relationship, the best friend relationship, the soul-mate relationship, the brotherly relationship, the Mother-child relationship All rolled into one...

 

Dwai: well what happened?

 

Westerner: He told me I had to blow him in order to unblock my throat chakra, later he also said I had to donate all my savings to his charity so I can learn about compassion. Turns out he just likes oral and money... I just feel the lowest I ve ever felt i my entire life now...

 

Dwai: Well its your fault.

 

THE END

[tyler zambori]

Are you kidding? You think that it doesn't matter if a Hindu Guru is or is not versed in Hindu scriptures?

You point to Berzin but Buddhist teachers also have to be well versed in Buddhist scriptures.

And it's like that everywhere, religion or more worldly life. That is common sense.

 

Ok, *how* does being well versed in scriptures make a good teacher?

besides the fact I don't personally like Hindu scriptures, I would

state that there are far better criteria. In other words, it takes

far more than that, and simply regurgitating old bloated yet worhipped

words doesn't cut it.

[Pero]

Westerner: He told me I had to blow him in order to unblock my throat chakra, later he also said I had to donate all my savings to his charity so I can learn about compassion. Turns out he just likes oral and money... I just feel the lowest I ve ever felt i my entire life now...

 

Dwai: Well its your fault.

 

Well of course, it's not the Guru's fault this guy had no brains in his head.

 

Responsibility goes both ways really. Teachers shouldn't use their students (although this could be used as a lesson), and students shouldn't dump their brains when they start to follow a teacher.

[markern]

Well of course, it's not the Guru's fault this guy had no brains in his head.

 

Responsibility goes both ways really. Teachers shouldn't use their students (although this could be used as a lesson), and students shouldn't dump their brains when they start to follow a teacher.

 

Yes the student made the teacher make the student blow him

[Pero]

Ok, *how* does being well versed in scriptures make a good teacher?

besides the fact I don't personally like Hindu scriptures,

 

Who cares if you personally don't like Hindu scriptures? I don't see how like or dislike of Hindu scriptures has anything to do with anything.

 

If someone wants to teach then he should be well versed in what he wants to teach. Otherwise how could he teach? After that he should also have some experience of what he is teaching, and also have an ability to convey all this to other people.

 

In other words, it takes far more than that, and simply regurgitating old bloated yet worhipped

words doesn't cut it.

 

I only glanced at that text but apparently you glanced less than I because I seem to remember it also says knowing scriptures isn't enough.

[That Guy]

Yes the student made the teacher make the student blow him

BUt it was the only way he could clear that big blockage in his throat chakra!

What would you choose to follow? Your limited western arrogant common sense or your Guru who is your spiritual guide!?

[Pero]

Yes the student made the teacher make the student blow him

 

?

[Pero]

BUt it was the only way he could clear that big blockage in his throat chakra!

What would you choose to follow? Your limited western arrogant common sense or your Guru who is your spiritual guide!?

 

Where do you live? Perhaps the more west you go the dumber the people are.

[That Guy]

Where do you live? Perhaps the more west you go the dumber the people are.

keep going west and you'll reach the "east", and eventually yourself, the world is round....

This whole east west thing is BS, you can only judge people as individuals.

[Pero]

This whole east west thing is BS, you can only judge people as individuals.

 

Oh actually I agree 100% with that, there are "suckers" and abusers everywhere, east and west.

[That Guy]

AND might I add, that it is not always a question of people being "stupid", but people being innocent. Having innocence, like a child.

[Pero]

AND might I add, that it is not always a question of people being "stupid", but people being innocent. Having innocence, like a child.

 

Well I guess "stupid" is just a kind of flashy word. Innocence, ignorance, naivete, neediness, confusion and maybe more can come into play.

[Owledge]

Well I guess "stupid" is just a kind of flashy word. Innocence, ignorance, naivete, neediness, confusion and maybe more can come into play.

 

Those are more or less names for relative conditions. Isn't it more important to acknowledge that they are seekers? They seek to improve themselves in a good way. Who wants to draw a line for those terms below which manipulation of seekers becomes more justifiable?

Edited March 21, 2010 by Hardyg

[That Guy]

Can you blame an innocent person for being misled by their guru?

I mean you know.. they're innocent

 

Hardyg, if I get what you're saying, i 100% agree.

Edited March 21, 2010 by That Guy

[Pero]

Those are more or less names for a relative conditions. Isn't it more important to acknowledge that they are seekers? They seek to improve themselves in a good way. Who wants to draw a line for those termes below which manipulation of seekers becomes more justifiable?

 

Who is trying to justify manipulation?

[Pero]

Can you blame an innocent person for being misled by their guru?

I mean you know.. they're innocent

 

Innocent = Ignorant. It's good to evaluate a teacher before fully comitting to him, and to learn a bit about the teachings from scriptures so you can see whether or not he is teaching accordingly. Teachers can use their own words, but the meaning shouldn't be different than scriptures. Also for example, in Tibetan Buddhism there are texts describing which qualities a teacher worthy of following should have and which the student worthy of teaching should have.

 

Not examining the teacher is like drinking poison,

Not examining the disciple is like jumping off a cliff.

- Padmasambhava

[That Guy]

Who is trying to justify manipulation?

I think hes just saying, if the victims were naive, innocent or whatever it shouldn't matter because they were all seeking to improve themselves.

[Pero]

I think hes just saying, if the victims were naive, innocent or whatever it shouldn't matter because they were all seeking to improve themselves.

 

I don't understand.

[Owledge]

Who is trying to justify manipulation?

Talking in the direction of fault or blame. I mean, those concepts are vague and philosophically highly questionable anyway, but I would find it more applicable to say that naively being tricked by a conman doesn't mean that it is your fault if your condition at that time was not created willfully. It's of course just another view, but one which can have positive consequences on people's behavior, namely compassion. If there's someone as naive as you can imagine, but that person is seeking to improve, you would have to explain how you know all the background story of how that naivete came to be. It appears like saying: When a baby touches the hot cooking plate and gets burns from it, it is the baby's fault. Well, to stay within the boundaries of reason, it definitely wasn't the fault of the cooking plate, but what about the mother?