Stripping The Gurus

[Apech]

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.

 

Hmmm interesting - what about a person who prefers to be malicious rather than kind - not for any reason but just because they can - are they evil?

 

I don't know the answer - just thinking.

[neiye]

Hmmm interesting - what about a person who prefers to be malicious rather than kind - not for any reason but just because they can - are they evil?

 

I don't know the answer - just thinking.

 

Hi Apepch7,

 

Just my two little cents on it:

 

-1st cent: Chosing to be malicious for no other reason than the possibility of it is the experience of freedom itself. Sometimes teens are doing that just to see how it feels when they go beyond the limits parents/society imposed. I would say that evil is ignorance of a better way to express and fullfill needs.

 

-2nd cent: qi flow quality affects emotions and as RyanO states it, when imbalance occurs, one is more prone to have destructive behavior (towards oneself or any other). This is what I observed on myself when I compared my behavior before committing to a daily qigong practice (zhan zhuang )and some few weeks after. I was desperatly trying everything for years in terms of ethics, self-help books etc..and it simply occured naturally, with more qi and a better qi flow. Of course, I am tremendously far from being a perfect person, but I can say without any sort of pride that there is less anger, more tolerance etc..in me. In this case evil is also due to unfullfilled needs, but more in an energetic sense as TCM would diagnose it ("organs" produce emotions ).

 

Best qi

Neiye

[3bob]

hmm, imo an "ultimately" is beyond both good and evil as we may relate to them, thus with niether of such ever having been pure in an ultimate sense.

 

Further, I have no doubt from the perspective of duality that operates in time and space that both good and evil do exist... It's like the idea that pure energy itself is not good or evil for it really just IS, but then again it may be put through good or evil filters so to speak.

 

Om

[Owledge]

From my perspective, the last few postings seem to show a common mistake in philosophy: 'arguing' about mere words and definitions. How can you wonder about things like whether evil really exists, when evil is a concept, very vague, no unified interpretation. Replace words like evil with a short but concise definition of yours first and then use it instead of the word, so people don't talk about different things.

[RyanO]

From my perspective, the last few postings seem to show a common mistake in philosophy: 'arguing' about mere words and definitions. How can you wonder about things like whether evil really exists, when evil is a concept, very vague, no unified interpretation. Replace words like evil with a short but concise definition of yours first and then use it instead of the word, so people don't talk about different things.

 

True enough. I also mentioned that people have different definitions of what 'evil' is. I have no problem agreeing that some people have destructive intentions, that people experience pain, etc.

 

I think the word 'evil' carries metaphysical weight beyond these things, in the common understanding. Admitting its existence means that there is something fundamentally 'wrong' with reality. The feeling that maybe reality is screwed up in someway leads people to believe in evil, and it is often pain that leads people to these conclusions. Resisting 'what is' is believing in evil.

[Apech]

From my perspective, the last few postings seem to show a common mistake in philosophy: 'arguing' about mere words and definitions. How can you wonder about things like whether evil really exists, when evil is a concept, very vague, no unified interpretation. Replace words like evil with a short but concise definition of yours first and then use it instead of the word, so people don't talk about different things.

 

To be honest I wasn't being 'philosophical' I was just asking in a simple way whether people thought that there were other people who just liked being malicious - just for the hell of it - and if so wouldn't that be evil.

 

If people act badly - but its either not really their intent or its because they are screwed up in some way then I don't think they are evil in any sense - so you can dismiss everything that's due to mistake, error, stupidity, emotion arising from hurt and so on - then see what's left - if you see what I mean.

 

From a Taoist philosophical point of view bad only exists because of good and so on - its just a relative duality and so there is nothing that is absolutely evil, that's true so the question is just practical and pragmatic really.

[C T]

Was watching the telly news yesterday, whereupon a report came up of a wife who literally hammered her husband (26 blows!) to death, after being pushed to the limit by years of physical and mental (and of the 'spirit' too, IMO) abuse. She was given a 5yr suspended sentence.

 

Was there a presence of 'evil' intent here i wonder? On whose part? What do you all think? Was her sentence justified?

 

In my view, evil is the progressive presence of apathy, balanced out by the progressive absence of empathy.

 

I have come across many teachers/gurus whose nature is so gentle and overflowing with empathy. Another group of people who display enormous empathetic vibes are those who work with the dying, like the hospice care-givers for example. Empathy promotes an abundance of inner (or spiritual) strength, so the more exposure to suffering, death and dying, the stronger these individuals grow. This is something to ponder about...

[Owledge]

Empathy promotes an abundance of inner (or spiritual) strength, so the more exposure to suffering, death and dying, the stronger these individuals grow. This is something to ponder about...

Protective/defensive mechanism.

 

I think I understand why people should stop labeling things and just observe what happens.

 

I see it like this: People can channel darkness and light. Both have the power to trigger others to channel the same kind. What can work against this mechanism (maybe the only thing that can) is that thing called intent or free will; the ability to react contrary to the perceived laws of cause and effect. But maybe even this is only an illusion. From a certain spiritual standpoint everything that ever happens HAS to be forseeable in theory, because as soon as you assume an observer's position outside of the system we might call our universe, the knowledge of all factors in the system becomes possible.

 

So the woman stabbing her abusive husband to death meant that she wasn't strong enough to act against the 'natural' result of 'giving him what he should have seen coming'.

By this I don't say judging her behavior is bad ... as long as you see the judicial system as what it is and not more. It simply enforces laws, and whether those laws are helpful/wise/practical has to be discussed.

 

Without losing compassion - try to see humans as lifeless objects, as variables if you will, or computer programs. Then observe the interactions between them. This might help to get rid of concepts like "evil".

Take a computer for another example: There are immensely complex processes going on all the time, decisions, logical operations, all considering incoming information from various sources, highly dynamic and interacting with others (the user). Still, everything is set in the first place. The first burst of electrons rushing through the CPU simply go the way that has been set based on the internal structure of the logical circuits.

 

A philosophical topic that might stir up quite a bit in spiritual circles is the extent of conscience or soul. Again very vague terms and artificial concepts, but if you are aware of it, still, did you ever ask yourself questions like "Do computers have a conscience?" or "Can conscience even be defined as something limited in any way?" or "Is conscience a concept of the same nature as space or gravity?" or "Is it absurd to say that a computer or any other interactive (=every) thing in the universe is not conscious or sentient?"?

Maybe you come to the conclusion that conscience is a concept invented by the mind to feel superior, powerful or relevant and thus survive. And if it were this way, you could see its purpose, for what keeps the mind alive supports all the helpful things the mind can do. And "helpful" is of course relative to what you want to achieve.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Hardyg

[Apech]

Was watching the telly news yesterday, whereupon a report came up of a wife who literally hammered her husband (26 blows!) to death, after being pushed to the limit by years of physical and mental (and of the 'spirit' too, IMO) abuse. She was given a 5yr suspended sentence.

 

Was there a presence of 'evil' intent here i wonder? On whose part? What do you all think? Was her sentence justified?

 

 

 

Good question. If there was evil intent I would say it was in the man not the woman - on the basis that she just snapped after being subjected to unbearable pressure. But it is equally possible that the man was driven by something he could not control. Despite this I think that we all have to take responsibility for our actions - I don't see the point of the 5 years suspended ... what is that supposed to achieve? She should either serve time or walk free.

 

If the man just deliberately wound her up and abused her for years with a cold heart - then this indeed could be called evil.

[gendao]

I encourage you to take a look at this book and at least read the chapter on your favorite guru. Of particular interest to me were Ramakrishna, the Dalai Lama, and of course, Yogananda. Even J. Krishnamurti, who spoke out against the guru-disciple relationship, is not left unscathed.

I have heard that some of the Indian gurus in particular may aggressively pursue women - but it still takes 2 to tango. Women have an inborn evo psych desire to submit to the alpha male...so they often easily succumb to groupieness. But, they are grown adults & it's still their choice.

 

I think counterpoints are always valuable, but this author may be trying a bit too hard too. I skimmed the chapter on the Dalai Lama out of curiosity...and it's like he was grabbing at straws trying to make a case, but really just found far more smoke than fire...

Edited May 4, 2010 by vortex

[RyanO]

I have heard that some of the Indian gurus in particular may aggressively pursue women - but it still takes 2 to tango. Women have an inborn evo psych desire to submit to the alpha male...so they often easily succumb to groupieness. But, they are grown adults & it's still their choice.

 

I think counterpoints are always valuable, but this author may be trying a bit too hard too. I skimmed the chapter on the Dalai Lama out of curiosity...and it's like he was grabbing at straws trying to make a case, but really just found far more smoke than fire...

 

True, I kind of glossed over Dalai's chapter but mentioned him because of his popularity.

 

However, I am surprised the author didn't mentioned his controversy with the NKT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

 

It seems strange for a man who promotes universal spirituality and religion 'beyond belief' to be engaged in such petty supernatural squabbles. Just goes to show even the most revered aren't immune to religious baggage and politics.

[gendao]

True, I kind of glossed over Dalai's chapter but mentioned him because of his popularity.

 

However, I am surprised the author didn't mentioned his controversy with the NKT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

 

It seems strange for a man who promotes universal spirituality and religion 'beyond belief' to be engaged in such petty supernatural squabbles. Just goes to show even the most revered aren't immune to religious baggage and politics.

Very true...

 

Of course, totally worshipping the Dalai Lama is a national pasttime in the US as a convenient pretext for bashing China. Hence, due to political reasons, he can do absolutely no wrong. That's why the same gay-pride Hollywood liberals who elevate him on a pedestal...conveniently overlook the fact that he opposes homosexuality.

His adamant stand on sexual morality is close to that of Pope John Paul II, a fact which his Western followers tend to find embarrassing, and prefer to ignore. The Dalai Lamas U.S. publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his [1999] book Ethics for the New Millennium, for fear that they would offend American readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced (French, 2003).

So, these same liberals angrily condemn Christians for anti-homosexuality...yet completely turn a blind eye when the Dalai Lama holds the same view.

 

Just goes to show how little true integrity these plastic people all have. It all boils down to superficial masks for underlying agendas... Well, I guess they are actors by trade. As I said, this culture has a deep problem with honest facts & prefers feel-good rhetoric instead.

Edited May 4, 2010 by vortex

[3bob]

Very true...

 

Of course, totally worshipping the Dalai Lama is a national pasttime in the US as a convenient pretext for bashing China. Hence, due to political reasons, he can do absolutely no wrong. That's why the same gay-pride Hollywood liberals who elevate him on a pedestal...conveniently overlook the fact that he opposes homosexuality. :lol:So, these same liberals angrily condemn Christians for anti-homosexuality...yet completely turn a blind eye when the Dalai Lama holds the same view.

 

Just goes to show how little true integrity these plastic people all have. It all boils down to superficial masks for underlying agendas... Well, I guess they are actors by trade. As I said, this culture has a deep problem with honest facts & prefers feel-good rhetoric instead.

 

Could you quit knocking down that little kid? (before proceeding further)

[tyler zambori]

Could you quit knocking down that little kid? (before proceeding further)

 

 

looks to me like the little kid is falling down on purpose.

[Apech]

looks to me like the little kid is falling down on purpose.

 

Its a very handy self defense technique - provided the attacker is aged 18 months or less.

[-O-]

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.

[the latest freed]

I'm in the middle ground as far as this issue goes. I'm going to use the word "teacher" here because I realize that "guru" is a loaded term with various conflicting connotations. And I think it's worth mentioning that, for the sake of this response, "teacher" should be understood to include university teachers, elementary school teachers, gurus, martial arts instructors, parents, etc. That said...

 

I see the value of having a teacher because, as some have already stated, we aren't born knowing all the answers. Life is journey and sometimes we need guides to help us along. It's good to hear certain views and consider them, whether from a formal teacher or otherwise. But I don't think that completely soaking up everything one person says is the way to go, regardless of the teacher's purity.

 

Maybe the solution is not to have one teacher, but several with differing perspectives and experiences? Not all at once, of course--maybe one teacher for a period of time, and then another teacher, and then eventually the student goes off on his/her own path, sans teacher? That's similar to the university format, which I think is effective (at least in my experience). That way, the student is able to entrust himself to the teacher for a period of time and soak in that teacher's knowledge, but the student is then able to move on and get another opinion/perspective from another teacher to counter or supplement the previous teacher's teachings. In this way, the student doesn't need to worry as much about being misled or brainwashed because the contract between the student and teacher is recognized as temporary at the outset. Also, by receiving various teachings that may oppose one another, the student becomes equipped to discern truth from fiction on his/her own. I think the length of time needed before a student is ready to go off on his/her own differs from person to person, but I do think all students should eventually be able to move away from teachers and become self-sufficient thinkers and learners.

 

As the old saying goes, "The good teacher teaches the student that they already know the answer." The teacher is there to help the student learn how to find those answers on their own, not to feed them the answers. Because, I think we'll all agree (at least I hope so), true enlightenment/realization/fill-in-the-blank-with-your-preferred-word-here comes from reaching the truth using one's own faculties, with a teacher or without.

[Cueball]

[RyanO]

 

Trungpa Rinpoche, The Myth of Freedom

"It is said...

 

Sounds like an alcoholic egomaniac to me!

 

Never bought into the whole crazy wisdom thing.

[gendao]

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.

Interesting, who is the first teacher? I'd like to maybe check him out sometime?

 

As far as the second one, he did have a playful, informal flair...but he actually avoided socializing with students after his large, public workshops. I also think the number of upset students and drama surrounding him was actually relatively small - considering the vast number of students he taught in his world tours. Of which most were happy with their experiences. Although I would say that I do wish we were more prepared for the heavy detoxing the method could induce. That probably would have eliminated much of the confusion & controversy that did exist.

 

I think you are correct in that many students may think they can "get ahead" by kissing their guru's (finger) azz...instead of just focusing on the practice (moon) itself. In the second case, the vibe towards the end seemed to turn more egotistically competitive & commercialized amongst some of the facilitators. I certainly don't blame anyone for trying to make livings at something they believe in...but I did miss the initial scene where everyone humbly put aside their egos & personal gain to partake in this new experience together. There was an innocent purity then, that later got lost. I guess it's just human nature to want to get ahead on a hierarchy & turn a buck. Nothing entirely wrong with that either...the short break from the rat race was just rather refreshing.

[Cueball]

Sounds like an alcoholic egomaniac to me!

 

Never bought into the whole crazy wisdom thing.

 

Ha! He did like a drink, for sure.

[-O-]

Interesting, who is the first teacher? I'd like to maybe check him out sometime?

 

As far as the second one, he did have a playful, informal flair...but he actually avoided socializing with students after his large, public workshops. I also think the number of upset students and drama surrounding him was actually relatively small - considering the vast number of students he taught in his world tours. Of which most were happy with their experiences. Although I would say that I do wish we were more prepared for the heavy detoxing the method could induce. That probably would have eliminated much of the confusion & controversy that did exist.

 

I think you are correct in that many students may think they can "get ahead" by kissing their guru's (finger) azz...instead of just focusing on the practice (moon) itself. In the second case, the vibe towards the end seemed to turn more egotistically competitive & commercialized amongst some of the facilitators. I certainly don't blame anyone for trying to make livings at something they believe in...but I did miss the initial scene where everyone humbly put aside their egos & personal gain to partake in this new experience together. There was an innocent purity then, that later got lost. I guess it's just human nature to want to get ahead on a hierarchy & turn a buck. Nothing entirely wrong with that either...the short break from the rat race was just rather refreshing.

 

 

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.

Edited May 14, 2010 by -O-

[-O-]

-O- thank you for your sharing your experiences, I can relate to a lot of it.

 

......

 

 

 

_/|\_ Thanks for that post.

Edited May 14, 2010 by -O-

[Vajrahridaya]

Sounds like an alcoholic egomaniac to me!

 

Never bought into the whole crazy wisdom thing.

 

I think we need to stop making absolute judgments and strip ourselves first.

[-O-]

 

 

Never bought into the whole crazy wisdom thing.

 

 

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"...