Stripping The Gurus

[Owledge]

I'm starting to lose hope that I'll ever find real teaching. I mean it's very nice that someone can write dozens of inspiring books which help us to develop our lives. But if it eventually results in sexual perversion or other sick habits, that's something what I'd rather not develop for... I don't want to become enlightened if it means that I will do what I despite.

 

However... I believe that I don't want to live as a hermit, for example. But I know that during my self-cultivation and inner development, this will probably change, and maybe later I will have no problem living as a hermit. And I find this OK. Yet, there are things what I wouldn't find OK if I'd have no problem doing them. But if a spiritual teaching cannot ensure me that I will eventually free myself from these evil thoughts and deeds instead of surrendering to them, then how should I cultivate myself and how should I develop? What should I follow?

Aren't you at least somewhat lucky that you know what you despise? How can you fear that by following a guru you might become entangled in some sick stuff, when you know you would never do that stuff?

Thus, I don't think you should see the existence of con-gurus as a significant problem in finding a good/real/suitable guru. The problem is not so much avoiding as finding. If you can sort out dozens of fake gurus, this doesn't mean that the real ones become more visible ... I suppose.

Personally, in choosing who I regard a positive example, I pay a lot of attention to the demeanor, which, like mentioned here, I, too, regard as typical qualities of a good spiritual teacher. If I sense some demons raging in a teacher, I know he's not a suitable teacher for me.

[markern]

Clearly there is a semantic problem happening with the word 'Guru'. If one means a respected teacher, then no problem. But I agree with markern in the sense that there is often a potentially dangerous dogma surrounding the traditional role of a guru.

 

Guru worship (a very real practice) has its benefits, but these benefits can be had from other kinds of spiritual practice without the dangers. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in a body is not an incarnation of God, unless we all are.

 

We have evolved spiritually. The guru relationship evolved in a time when it was necessary, but this is more and more not the case.

 

J. Krishnamurti talked a lot about the spiritual problems with the guru/disciple relationship (which is funny because he is in the book!)

 

As for Athanor's problem, as I stated in the first post I became disillusioned as well. I have found the Taoist approach to have answers as to why all these gurus had sex problems.

 

Basically, it's because many religions are too focused on the formless, heavenly realms. Practically speaking, the view that the body is not as holy as the spirit is a subtle attack on the jing and does not allow it to be integrated or worked with. Thus it can be suppressed and eventually will require release. The classical view of transmutation is not sufficient IMHO. But this is another topic and has been discussed elsewhere (and how!).

 

Sex is not evil. Women are not evil. Ejaculation is not evil. Imbalance is evil.

 

I talked to a budhist monk that has also studied extensively with mantak chia about celibacy and he said that in his experience those monastaries that have either choice of celibacy or not (several traditions lets you take a wife amongst the nuns after five years or so of celibacy, Zen masters are frequently married etc.) and those who teach good techniques of sublimation usualy have ok views of women and not so much sexual hangups and scandals. THose who have strict views on celibacy and no good technique to sublimate often end up with lots of sexual hang ups and very negative views on women.

 

I would actually ike to hear more about specific theories about what is wrong with the classical view on transmutation and how to go about things in stead so please go a head of you feel like it.

[Athanor]

Aren't you at least somewhat lucky that you know what you despise? How can you fear that by following a guru you might become entangled in some sick stuff, when you know you would never do that stuff?

Thus, I don't think you should see the existence of con-gurus as a significant problem in finding a good/real/suitable guru. The problem is not so much avoiding as finding. If you can sort out dozens of fake gurus, this doesn't mean that the real ones become more visible ... I suppose.

Personally, in choosing who I regard a positive example, I pay a lot of attention to the demeanor, which, like mentioned here, I, too, regard as typical qualities of a good spiritual teacher. If I sense some demons raging in a teacher, I know he's not a suitable teacher for me.

I wouldn't take the courage to state that I know what is good for me. Although I know what I despite now, I also know that some of these are caused by my inner suppressions and all kinds of psychically defective things, which will dissolve with further development. Although I don't like things today, I am aware that this is an unsustainable mental attitude in a spiritual development. So I will most likely have to face that things I despite will become indifferent, or even liked.

 

A good teacher often uses methods which are against the student's will. Disciplining can take on rough forms. But when a disciple faces the things which are outside of his comfort zone, he hardly recognizes the difference between this rough disciplining and evil behavior. He will be forced to believe that the guru wants his best interest (he'll force himself to think that). And he simply despites failing the guru, just like I despite things today, yet, this fear of failing him might also derive from some psychic defects.

You see, you leave sense outside the door when you allow someone else to take total control over your life, regardless whether it's a dictator or a guru. In such relationship you can't rely on your own sense. Eventually, the disciple's devotion will become his greatest trap, as it is general with blind faith...

 

I see the existence of con-gurus as significant problem, but it's not really the existence of these fakes that disturbs me. The problem is more the fact that these fakes teach the same things what the real gurus teach. Not almost the same, and not something like them. They teach the same. It means that even if you follow these teachings, you still don't overcome these sexual and other kind of issues. I, most likely among many others, strive for spiritual perfection because I want to avoid those mistakes and errors what average people do. I don't want to end up dealing with a decade-long sickness before I die, caused by bad habits. I don't want to raise my children in a way as they won't get answers and they'll become misguided by other influences. I want to understand what this whole thing we call life is about; even if the answer is that it has no meaning at all, I want to understand that answer. Spiritual development is something what can lead to this, according to my view. So, this belief makes me feel secure, it tells me that when I do these things right, I will eventually go towards this goal. Although many things can happen which prevent me from reaching the final goal, I will still go towards the goal.

Yet, when I read about these "gurus", I see that this is not so. I can't be sure whether I go towards the goal or not. I can't be sure whether the end I'll reach is enlightenment or a deeper and stronger psychic defect, some sort of perversion which will put me into the next volume of Stripping the gurus...

 

I just finished a book called Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis, and it clearly points out that, on the highest level, psychoanalysis and Zen has the same goal: to overcome the suppressions and to make the unconscious fully conscious. According to the Zen definition of enlightenment, and the psychoanalysis' definition of spiritual health, this is what they're all about. Now, we've already known for a long time that psychotherapists can be incompetent, they can lack knowledge or understanding, or they can be simply bad in what they do - or even psychotherapy itself can be a failure. But we had a feeling that this can never happen with a guru and a 2 thousand years old teaching; although a psychotherapist can have his own defects, a guru is someone who has already overcome his own, who has completely achieved enlightenment. But it turns out that we're all just people after all...

 

I'm not sure whether it even makes sense to look for a teaching...

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Unfortunately it is all too easy to expose the faults of teachers, there are none whom are faultless.. some are more or less aware or intentional in their faults, some are even dangerous.. as always: "Caveat Emptor" (buyer beware).. That being said, it seems more beneficial to listen for the nuggets of wisdom that are usually required for a 'guru' to attract attention..

 

The majority of my adult life (i'm 59 now) has been devoted to studying the common threads that run through the major religions and philosophies.. the commonalities that inspire humanity's relationships with each other and with their environment.. if you can sincerely look for the commonalities that bind us as a civilization, rather than focus on the differences that separate us as suspicious competitors.. Life 'can' be a beautiful experience.. well, i sense that it is, anyway.. but i seem to be in a minority.. it just a matter of perspective..

 

Be well..

[RyanO]

I talked to a budhist monk that has also studied extensively with mantak chia about celibacy and he said that in his experience those monastaries that have either choice of celibacy or not (several traditions lets you take a wife amongst the nuns after five years or so of celibacy, Zen masters are frequently married etc.) and those who teach good techniques of sublimation usualy have ok views of women and not so much sexual hangups and scandals. THose who have strict views on celibacy and no good technique to sublimate often end up with lots of sexual hang ups and very negative views on women.

 

I would actually ike to hear more about specific theories about what is wrong with the classical view on transmutation and how to go about things in stead so please go a head of you feel like it.

 

 

What I meant by the 'classical view of transmutation' was more about context and intention rather than technique.

 

Celibates/transmuters will often pay lip service to the effect that sex energy is holy and we should transmute it rather than waste it (thought some do think it is evil), but in practice they still have the orthodox belief that the body and ‘flesh’ are base or evil, and that transmutation somehow makes the sex energy more holy. This belief affects the body on a subtle level and can cause issues such as we see with the gurus. A lot of it depends on religious belief. IMO, if one does not believe in the perfection of all of reality, including embodiment, there will always be tension.

 

As far as technique, another thing I meant by classical view is the focus on bringing sex energy up the spine and to the higher centers. IMO, not only does this energy need to be brought down the front, it is also far more important to open the lower dantian. Yogic philosophy in particular would disagree.

 

Patanjali subscribed to a dualistic metaphysic (Samkhyan) and this is evident in the Yoga Sutras. In this context, just bringing energy up the spine to escape the body and fully become spirit actually makes sense. However, I think it doesn't work because it is imbalanced. Misreading the Yoga Sutras as non-dualistic is a misinterpretation and creates problems.

 

All this said, everybody/path is different and I realize these are generalizations. But valid generalizations nonetheless. I can't speak to your Buddhist monks because I don't know their contexts and techniques. If they are successful with transmutation, my guess is that not only do they have balanced technique, they have an understanding that there is nothing fundamentally 'wrong' our body or reality.

 

Many people fail with transmutation because their efforts are unconsciously fueled by fear and resistance.

 

Again, this is all my opinion, and I mean no disrespect to anyone's path.

Edited March 22, 2010 by RyanO

[3bob]

A hard to believe or accept "secret" for some (in part because of the many cases of abuse by fakes) is that it is a true guru (or sage) who is really doing the choosing and also the giving of various forms of help as needed by the student... while a student through various means of searching for what they may have some sense of but do not yet fully understand, start a process of attraction for such help to become manifest for them, thus both parties are benefitted and fulfilled through a teacher/student process. Further, and beyond all relative and changing appearences it is really the Tao or the Spirit who is doing the choosing and or giving of help through the open vessel of a true guru; ultimately this equates to Spirit unto Spirit or Love unto Love, for separation from the Ocean is ultimately untrue.

 

I think T.T.C. chapter 41 quoted below relates to this area in its own way:

 

"When a wise scholar hears the Tao,

He practises it diligently.

When a mediocre scholar hears the Tao,

He wavers between belief and unbelief.

When a worthless scholar hears the Tao,

He laughs boisterously at it.

But if such a one does not laugh at it,

The Tao would not be the Tao!

 

The wise men of old have truly said:

 

The bright Way looks dim.

The progressive Way looks retrograde.

The smooth Way looks rugged.

High Virtue looks like an abyss.

Great whiteness looks spotted.

Abundant Virtue looks deficient.

Established Virtue looks shabby.

Solid Virtue looks as though melted.

Great squareness has no corners.

Great talents ripen late.

Great sound is silent.

Great Form is shapeless.

 

The Tao is hidden and nameless;

Yet it alone knows how to render help and to fulfill.

.

.

Edited March 22, 2010 by 3bob

[ralis]

Further, and beyond all relative and changing appearences it is really the Tao or the Spirit who is doing the choosing and or giving of help through the open vessel of a true guru; ultimately this equates to Spirit unto Spirit or Love unto Love, for separation from the Ocean is ultimately untrue.

 

 

 

 

 

That is a very dangerous path to pursue. Therefor, subjugating one to the higher cause and to sacrifice to the guru etc.

 

Excellent work by Wilhelm Reich which goes into great detail around sexual repression and what it can lead to.

 

http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

 

ralis

Edited March 22, 2010 by ralis

[3bob]

No offense intended but it is also dangerous to be born but we do it anyway...

 

What is interesting is that there is ultimately only one of us, as in "no other". Thus no other guru, no other student, no other universe, no other separate us and them, etc.. And if one accepts and comes to know that then what other cause of some other Being is being served? Can such a path have a dangerous razor edge(?) of course, but it also has the Spirit!

 

Btw, I see an apparent separate as also being part of the "game" and that to serves a purpose.

 

Good fortune

Edited March 22, 2010 by 3bob

[markern]

[tyler zambori]

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.

 

Who cares if you don't care that I don't like it?

 

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.

 

Yeah, this is not mentioned in that document. This is what I mean.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Only indirectly - only by mentioning that direct realization is also important. Come on!

 

This document has about the most sectarian viewpoint one could possibly come up with.

I guess, according to this, the Taoist practice of chanting the healing sounds is heretical.

 

Also, no guru or devotee could be pure enough for these guidelines, so what is left?

Submitting oneself to the guru anyway? Yeah, you betcha, that is how it works.

[Owledge]

I saw a documentray about the Himba people a while ago and they used a lot of dance to go into trance and do deep spiritual work. Dancing for alchemical and meditative reasons apears to have been a part of most or all the original more shamanic traditions but is almost lost in the traditions practiced today excpet sufism. If anything is a "root" pracitce then it is dancing with an alchemical purpose. I am not sure about Drews Theories about the Bushmen but I certainly think there is some definite alchemy going on there.

I suppose you have heard of Bradford Keeney. If not, you find info on the WWW.

And the african shamanism style is apparently a root practice, for example still present in Kunlun Nei Gung, or in other practices that feature spontaneous movement.

 

SUPPLEMENT: Not to forget those whose name gives it away clearly: the Shakers!

Edited March 22, 2010 by Hardyg

[markern]

I suppose you have heard of Bradford Keeney. If not, you find info on the WWW.

And the african shamanism style is apparently a root practice, for example still present in Kunlun Nei Gung, or in other practices that feature spontaneous movement.

 

Hmmmm. I can see how spontanious movement practices might help with this but I am not sure it will realy develop the same with regards to emotionality. But I have never practiced something like it so hard to tell. THanks for the tip about Keeney:) Will check him out.

[Pero]

Who cares if you don't care that I don't like it?

 

My point was that it's completely irrelevant. You were replying to a Hindu, about a Hindu text.

 

Only indirectly - only by mentioning that direct realization is also important. Come on!

 

Not also important, indispensible.

 

This document has about the most sectarian viewpoint one could possibly come up with.

 

Hindu text, followed by Hindus.

 

I guess, according to this, the Taoist practice of chanting the healing sounds is heretical.

 

It's a HINDU text. Perhaps it is heretical but so what? You're not a Hindu to my knowledge so you don't have to concern yourself so much with it.

 

In any case it was my understanding that the text was linked to as an example. As the person giving the link is a Hindu, he linked a Hindu text as an example. But perhaps I misunderstood.

 

Also, no guru or devotee could be pure enough for these guidelines, so what is left?

 

How do you know this?

[ralis]

Further, and beyond all relative and changing appearences it is really the Tao or the Spirit who is doing the choosing and or giving of help through the open vessel of a true guru; ultimately this equates to Spirit unto Spirit or Love unto Love, for separation from the Ocean is ultimately untrue.

 

 

 

 

 

If it is the Tao or Spirit as you claim, then only an enlightened one can make that judgment. Where does it leave the rest of us? Why not tell the victims of this guy (Ösel Tendzin) that getting AIDS was orchestrated by divinity. He was Trungpa's successor.

 

ralis

Edited March 22, 2010 by ralis

[Pero]

You say guru = essential.

Therefore 1 cannot fully develop spiritually without one.

Meaning the Gurus have a monopoly on your spiritual development.

 

The Gurus give you the path but it's completely up to you whether you walk it or not.

 

No matter what is asked, you must follow if you want to fully develop spiritually.

 

Why?

[Owledge]

[That Guy]

The Gurus give you the path but it's completely up to you whether you walk it or not.

 

 

 

Why?

Dwai had said you cant get really far without a guru to guide you, you're an arrogant westerner if you think so. That is Why.

 

You want to develop spiritually? You must walk this spiritual path, your guru knows best, if you knew best you wouldn't need a guru. So walk it or forget spiritual advancement.

 

I'm too tired tonight, i just came for a quick lurk before bed and I get this

enjoy your point of view, goodbye

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The 'forms' of Taijiquan, the choreographed movements, are just tools with which to understand the 'principles', and.. the 'principles' are the Taiji.. once the principles are internalized, the 'forms' are meaningless.. "we learn, to forget".. i encourage the students demonstrating an understanding of principles to express the principles in 'free-form', formless movement.. 'Life' is spontaneous, why would your practice not aspire likewise?

 

Be well..

[Birch]

"Sex is not evil. Women are not evil."

 

Phew! Finally

 

Except that they're JUST as evil as everyone else. Maybe we could have another Women = evil topic.

 

Or a topic about the origins of the word and the concept of "evil" (which if I remember correctly - and even if I don't, does it matter that much?) = maya. Or was that Satan? Anyway, one or the other.

But wait "maya is samsara" and "evil backwards spells "live"" - oh.

 

----

 

Back to the topic at hand. If the premise is that the Guru knows something the disciple doesn't - which I think they ought to, otherwise, no point teaching what one doesn't know, right?

 

BUT to run off on a typical tangent, what if the disciple(s) was/were acting "teacher" to the guru who can't get higher in the heavenly hierarchy UNLESS he or she successfully makes it through "guru challenge"??

 

Anyway, back to being more conventional, if the guru is supposed to know something the disciple doesn't and is supposed to teach this thing IMO it is in his/her responsibility as a person (I could exaggerate and say "human" but that would be silly) to handle that knowledge and distill it correctly to the the disciple in such a way that the latter will then be able to pursue their OWN path. My opinion, obviously. My argument might not be excellent but hopefully I can get the point across.

 

Do no harm.

[3bob]

[Apech]

"Sex is not evil. Women are not evil."

 

Phew! Finally

 

Except that they're JUST as evil as everyone else. Maybe we could have another Women = evil topic.

 

Or a topic about the origins of the word and the concept of "evil" (which if I remember correctly - and even if I don't, does it matter that much?) = maya. Or was that Satan? Anyway, one or the other.

But wait "maya is samsara" and "evil backwards spells "live"" - oh.

 

----

 

 

 

evil

O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: Evilly. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel.

 

From online etymological dictionary.

[Birch]

Thanks Apech! That was excellent.

I'll take the uppity and slowly getting worse part. But not the vicious bits. Or the extreme moral wickedness. Can I? I'm obliged to keep "unskillful" by dint of various personality traits and faults.

[Pero]

Dwai had said you cant get really far without a guru to guide you, you're an arrogant westerner if you think so. That is Why.

 

I don't know about arrogant westerner but the former is true. Although then how much guidance is needed depends on the student.

 

Otherwise you're free to follow traditions which don't require transmission and guidance from a teacher.

 

You want to develop spiritually? You must walk this spiritual path, your guru knows best, if you knew best you wouldn't need a guru. So walk it or forget spiritual advancement.

 

Well if you're not a child and have a reasonable ammount of intelligence, I imagine you should be able to evaluate the teacher and path before committing fully to it. Guru knows best in relation to what he is teaching, I wouldn't go ask him on how to fix a computer.

 

enjoy your point of view, goodbye

 

LOL, you too.

[Apech]

Thanks Apech! That was excellent.

I'll take the uppity and slowly getting worse part. But not the vicious bits. Or the extreme moral wickedness. Can I? I'm obliged to keep "unskillful" by dint of various personality traits and faults.

 

Uppity and slowly getting worse ... as in - I get uppity every morning and then things slowly get worse another evil day ... lol no need to be vicious!

 

A.

[RyanO]

 

Except that they're JUST as evil as everyone else. Maybe we could have another Women = evil topic.

 

Or a topic about the origins of the word and the concept of "evil" (which if I remember correctly - and even if I don't, does it matter that much?) = maya. Or was that Satan? Anyway, one or the other.

But wait "maya is samsara" and "evil backwards spells "live"" - oh.

 

 

 

Not to get too off topic, but I think this is interesting.

 

'Evil' means different things in different contexts. Obviously, there are many acts and occurrences that could understandably been seen as 'evil'.

 

My personal belief is that there is no such thing as something being fundamentally evil. I see this perspective in a lot of Eastern philosophy, and is the primary thing that separates from Western dualistic/monotheistic philosophies. For these systems to work, evil and original sin must be accepted as truth IMHO. I think there is no such thing as sin and that humans are not fundamentally flawed.

 

I said imbalance is evil because that is the closest thing I see to being evil. Imbalance is what hinders flow of the life force. Any imbalanced emotion will do this, for example, and the outcome may be seen as 'evil'. Destructive forces are necessary for flow. Cancer is an example of the creative force gone haywire.

 

But ultimately, I believe there is no evil and that reality is perfect because everything is of the Tao. This insight is what fuels my Inner Smile.