Stripping The Gurus

[-O-]

 

Unless you are venerating your own perspective of them as part of yourself.

 

Sure, in a sense, but you are also venerating the specific accomplishments of the Guru which you yourself hope to imbibe from them through their teachings and their mind pointing through energy.

 

 

 

 

Do you see the connection here? Your statement could be seen as an example of Kate's.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

No, it's just two of you. Both of you seem to not contribute anything either... just bash. You seem to contribute a bit more than ralis though. I don't mind being arrogant towards both of you, though sometimes I take pleasure in being the opposite of you guys.

 

Both of you do wrongly take my assuredness of understanding as arrogance. Why should I lie about what I feel is true? You don't try to lie about what you feel is true... you two follow me around and make sarcastic comments quite often. Both of you reveal quite immensely your lack of inner experience and contemplation at every turn.

My problem with you is that you're always telling people how much understanding/development/spiritual attainment other people have. And you project your "assuredness of understanding" onto everyone else. Go look up my posts. I post a whole lot more than just responses to you. But your condescension and arrogance call for an answer. And not always sarcastic, either. BTW, ralis contributes intelligently and insightfully to a lot to many other topics... don't flatter yourself that our presence here is just because of you.

[Vajrahridaya]

Do you see the connection here? Your statement could be seen as an example of Kate's.

 

Yes indeed... I do recognize that possibility. I just want to make sure that this is the case though for Kate.

[Birch]

"The fact of the matter is that if you wish for the non-dual understanding as an ongoing life experience"

 

You know, I'm not so far away from that, I've visited a few times. I'll let things simmer if you don't mind. In fact I don't have a choice To be honest, I'm more interested in healthy eating, staying physically in shape, emotional balance, honing good communication skills, being kind but not a pushover. That sort of stuff.

[Vajrahridaya]

Go look up my posts. I post a whole lot more than just responses to you. But your condescension and arrogance call for an answer. And not always sarcastic, either. BTW, ralis contributes intelligently and insightfully to a lot to many other topics... don't flatter yourself that our presence here is just because of you.

 

First of all, if I'm wrong... it becomes quite apparent to me. It doesn't matter if someone else just thinks I'm wrong.

 

Second of all... the above is wonderful! I'm very glad that there is salvageable wisdom beyond the sarcastic retorts. Actually... I at many times enjoyed your creative sarcasms. They are far more entertaining than normal.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

You know, I'm not so far away from that, I've visited a few times. I'll let things simmer if you don't mind. In fact I don't have a choice To be honest, I'm more interested in healthy eating, staying physically in shape, emotional balance, honing good communication skills, being kind but not a pushover. That sort of stuff.

 

That's awesome Kate! I fully respect that, not that you need my respect. But, these goals will strongly support the experience of non-dual presence in your life. These are good foundations. I am still working on various foundations myself.

[-O-]

It's also what Masters say who are far beyond the points of views of the deluded masses. It's just a fact of non-duality that your own enlightened nature will pop out into a seemingly other being in order to mirror your out-turned awareness back in on itself. It is in fact a universal Truth. Eventually, everyone comes to meet their enlightened nature in a seemingly other person in order to get through the more tenuous self attachments.

 

....It's really just you though.

 

 

I think the insight youare talking about is understood in western thought without the need of magic - its called projection and transferance....

 

But back to the point about master who have acted badly, wick-wetting, drinking etc.... I think this thread intially started out regarding the flaws ound in people who were put upon high pedistals because they were considered "beyond the eluded masses" and proved others wise over time.

 

Western thought by no means is absent of self-investigation, perhaps in its religions, but it is the west where critical thought, scientific method emerged because there was the understanding the "selves" get in the way of truth. Also regarding this idea that the west is bent on "flawed world" views - it is prevalent in any religion - buddha says we are all deluded and suffering thus need to be fixed, Taoist say we have fallen from our true nature (or fallen from nature) and thus need to find our way back.... the "flawed world" "you are all F(*&ked up" has nothing to do with culture, philosophy or truth and everything to do with the mechanics of leading and manipulating mass groups of people - trust me on this one I am a soon to be x-marketer (leaving simply because of that kind of BS). I say mechanics because it eventually regardless of good intentions or value of a system - this sort of idea eventually creeps in.... I think precisly because there is an assumption that the people who have attained are now thought to be somehow different in their fundemental make-up then the rest of us and at some point this difference has to be expressed (because this difference is the very thing we are trying to attain)... then this leads to an asumption that at first you are flawed and after participating you will be fixed.... so an example of how a flaw in the relationship creeps into the teaching and then is passed on from generation to generation... but hey these teachings are a continuous mind-stream, one built upon the other, time tested and WAY better than anything new... (cognitive flaw that if it is is old it is better).

Edited May 17, 2010 by -O-

[Vajrahridaya]

buddha says we are all deluded and suffering thus need to be fixed

 

Just that our perspective needs to be fixed, not things. Life itself is pure and self liberated in every moment, due to the fact that there is no-self, there is nothing inherently sullied.

[Vajrahridaya]

but hey these teachings are a continuous mind-stream, one built upon the other, time tested and WAY better than anything new... (cognitive flaw that if it is is old it is better).

 

Thats not my point. Traditions that run like streams all evolve if an enlightened master is at the helm. As the enlightened are constantly new in every moment they will better reflect the necessity of the moment... even beyond our projections as their simplicity involves way more information per moment than we are aware of in not having realized the same level of wisdom.

 

Old and outmoded traditions should be evolved if they are not working anymore.

[-O-]

Just that our perspective needs to be fixed, not things. Life itself is pure and self liberated in every moment, due to the fact that there is no-self, there is nothing inherently sullied.

 

 

So its not the world, its me. Dude, same thing - same flaw error correction mentality.

 

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

Edited May 17, 2010 by -O-

[Vajrahridaya]

So its not the world, its me. Dude, same thing - same flaw error correction mentality.

 

It's more like your perception of the "me"... but anyway... I do understand what you are getting at. Yes, we do naturally wish to evolve if we have not realized the nature of everything. It's a natural desire and it should be honed towards the most beneficial direction.

 

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

 

I think you are projecting the feeling more than it is being given to you. You are not inherently flawed, you are inherently luminous, and bright with the potential of Buddhahood. You may be relatively flawed in your inability to live in that recognition all the time. I don't know any truly Buddharific teacher who would teach that you are inherently flawed, that would go against the teachings of the Buddha who's first statement after enlightenment contradicts that idea.

[-O-]

Thats not my point. Traditions that run like streams all evolve if an enlightened master is at the helm. As the enlightened are constantly new in every moment they will better reflect the necessity of the moment... even beyond our projections as their simplicity involves way more information per moment than we are aware of in not having realized the same level of wisdom.

 

Old and outmoded traditions should be evolved if they are not working anymore.

 

 

If you are not enlightened then you are not qualified to make the statement that traditions evolve if at the healm there is an enlightened master.

 

We have heard these types of statements for thousands of years and have been let down badly, lead down bad roads, killed, raped, been forced to kill, been convinced to kill for thousands of years as well. This is not truth - this is people at the healm , at the very least, not wanting to be bothered with critical questions - then a mythology is built to keep people from "bothering master"; and at the very worst they want total power over you and your resources.

[-O-]

It's more like your perception of the "me"... but anyway... I do understand what you are getting at. Yes, we do naturally wish to evolve if we have not realized the nature of everything. It's a natural desire and it should be honed towards the most beneficial direction.

 

 

 

I think you are projecting the feeling more than it is being given to you. You are not inherently flawed, you are inherently luminous, and bright with the potential of Buddhahood. You may be relatively flawed in your inability to live in that recognition all the time. I don't know any truly Buddharific teacher who would teach that you are inherently flawed, that would go against the teachings of the Buddha who's first statement after enlightenment contradicts that idea.

 

The idea that I am not enlightened now is to say there is an inherent flaw, don't you see the very concept of enlightenment and attainment of it draws a line of duality - enlightened vs deluded. The rest is semantical gymnastics.

[ralis]

If you are not enlightened then you are not qualified to make the statement that traditions evolve if at the healm there is an enlightened master.

 

We have heard these types of statements for thousands of years and have been let down badly, lead down bad roads, killed, raped, been forced to kill, been convinced to kill for thousands of years as well. This is not truth - this is people at the healm , at the very least, not wanting to be bothered with critical questions - then a mythology is built to keep people from "bothering master"; and at the very worst they want total power over you and your resources.

 

Thank you for describing this problem so well!

 

 

ralis

[C T]

Why, I believe that'd be me!! I would add that I only react to arrogance and condescension of that particular member, and putting him on 'ignore' doesn't work because he posts like a Buddhist Energizer Bunny, many more times than most people here. If you want to post your strong opinion here, you should be ready to be challenged. And if he wants to make his own sweeping generalizations on the "Truth As V Sees It", why can't we comment on it? Coarse intelligence? Guilty, then!

Sorry Mr Songs if you misapprehended. Its not you sir! I was actually thinking of someone else, one who thinks Buddhists are a deluded bunch, the Buddha invented suffering (ok only Buddhists suffer haha) and then 'sold' the concept in order to reap all the cream of the karma for himself! :P

[C T]

Strong ego clingings of empowered individuality, which can be both good and bad. It's one of the things that the Eastern mind set needs from the West, but the Western ego archetype as being strongly individual and independent needs to be balanced by the Eastern wisdom of interconnected egolessness.

Well said. Being an Easterner i would endorse this observation. I believe there are a few Western 'eastern philosophy' scholars that have also presented this view. Off the top of my head, i can think of Alan Watts (cited well in his book "The Meaning of Happiness") and B. Alan Wallace. A great talk here by Alan Wallace, explaining how Buddhism encapsulates/integrates the pursuits of happiness and virtue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bf6D5T-EVw. (encourage all to listen/watch this - succinct presentation.)

 

His background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Alan_Wallace

 

(for those who might be interested to follow up, he also gave a talk on 'Free Will' found on YT)

Edited May 17, 2010 by CowTao

[C T]

The idea that I am not enlightened now is to say there is an inherent flaw, don't you see the very concept of enlightenment and attainment of it draws a line of duality - enlightened vs deluded. The rest is semantical gymnastics.

Generally speaking, you could say that almost everyone experiences abiding in an enlightened state occasionally - in other words we all get glimpses now and then. Some connect with it during a brisk walk at dawn, some while taking a shower, some while engrossed in hobby, while painting etc. and some maybe when they witness the birth of a child. It could be anything really, not restricted to any grand displays of mystical revelations, or the descend of any Spirit. At these moments, all ideas about mundaneness vs mystic revelations are dropped, and there is a space, or spaciousness might be a better word, where the self is actually absent, with no reference point whatsoever remaining. Some recognize this, some do not. Those that do, and realize its significance, may want to delve deeper, or prolong the insight, whereby they will then resort to various means to do so. Those that do not recognize, but intuit that there is something more, that there are sublime levels to explore, may approach gurus who may or may not point them in the right direction.

 

Hence i would suggest here that the process of enlightenment is merely to first recognize these sparkly moments (thanks Vaj!), and then do the necessary to expand on them, to gradually make them more habitual, more expansive, so that as time goes by, it pervades one's being, until there no longer exist a separation between when one is or is not in enlightenment.

 

So to conclude, i would add that a tradition which points out a person's flawed state and claim that something there needs fixing is not a genuine tradition, and ought to be treated with suspect. Enlightenment has never been a destination anyway... The extinction of delusions, phobias and biases points one in that direction, which is right here, right now. We just need to first recognize.

Edited May 17, 2010 by CowTao

[Apech]

No, it's just two of you. Both of you seem to not contribute anything either... just bash. You seem to contribute a bit more than ralis though. I don't mind being arrogant towards both of you, though sometimes I take pleasure in being the opposite of you guys.

 

Both of you do wrongly take my assuredness of understanding as arrogance. Why should I lie about what I feel is true? You don't try to lie about what you feel is true... you two follow me around and make sarcastic comments quite often. Both of you reveal quite immensely your lack of inner experience and contemplation at every turn.

REPEAT QUOTE

 

"When others out of jealousy treat me badly

With abuse, slander, and so on,

I will learn to take on all loss,

And offer victory to them."

 

:)

[ralis]

Sorry Mr Songs if you misapprehended. Its not you sir! I was actually thinking of someone else, one who thinks Buddhists are a deluded bunch, the Buddha invented suffering (ok only Buddhists suffer haha) and then 'sold' the concept in order to reap all the cream of the karma for himself! :P

 

If you are referring to me, I said they invented the category of neurotic conditioning. The Buddhists talk ad infinitum about neurotic conditioning. I sat through many teachings and I grew weary of hearing how deluded we are. The Tibetan Buddhist system is a patriarchy of men sitting on their thrones and dispensing judgment.

 

 

ralis

[-O-]

...

Hence i would suggest here that the process of enlightenment is merely to first recognize these sparkly moments (thanks Vaj!), and then do the necessary to expand on them, to gradually make them more habitual, more expansive, so that as time goes by, it pervades one's being, until there no longer exist a separation between when one is or is not in enlightenment.

 

So to conclude, i would add that a tradition which points out a person's flawed state and claim that something there needs fixing is not a genuine tradition, and ought to be treated with suspect. Enlightenment has never been a destination anyway... The extinction of delusions, phobias and biases points one in that direction, which is right here, right now. We just need to first recognize.

 

 

Thank you for that.

So I guess what gets my ire up is the idea of an absolute enlightenment - a destination... or some line that once crossed now allows for that individual to be some sort of authority on truth or reality - when IME I find it is still (enlightenment) relative. And the only difference between the sparkly moments and spiky ones is the context o the experience.

 

This context is intrinsically made up of things like, belief, concept and language- meaning. All the same stuff of delusion and illusion. Today’s enlightenment is tomorrows ignorance (thus kill Buddha on the path). So this idea that venerated souls have some monopoly on wisdom, clarity, truth IMHO is bollocks. What they have is a well constructed framework which allows them to convey a context to this type of experience. That context may be made up of Eastern or Western thought, Buddhist or Taoist concepts, or existential thought etc. These particular types of frameworks are intrinsically focussed on experience itself, reality, illusion etc. so one can be lead down the path that if these framework is understood then anything pertaining to reality, illusion, experience etc is thus understood. And this is false.

 

I have know a few - some very very adept individuals - some would (and I did at the time) consider enlightened - and over time their own person issues/limitations to the context of their experience have shone through as brightly as their enlightenment. Issue here is if we are to hold this idea of an absolute awareness that these individuals have attained then we are establishing a context which ignores important information (for instance these are humans with normal human flaws) which leads to greater ignorance - more delusion. Again, the need to strip the gurus.

 

We are also actively taught that if we are not humble enough to bow at their feet - or do not do some mental house cleaning regarding doubts that we have of them, then we are not worthy students. All of these things are said about not being able to learn if you are doubting teacher etc... when really the arguments being made are pretty weak.

 

What it comes down to is a single person cannot effectively teach a group of people if there are a handful who monopolise time with critical questions - an individual cannot keep a group of people cohesively committed and progressing if they are processing through doubts that may rise from these questions.... it has little to do with actual teachings and more to do with the logistics of teaching - especially when 90% of the time the answer is "keep practicing and it will come clear".

 

This is fine if it were presented in this context - call a spade a spade - but it is not. It is presented as individuals which have cross some line, graduated to some level, crossed some stream which demands our unquestioning respect and devotion. If we are not willing to give it then we are not worthy. This then is the planted seed, the cornerstone in the foundation which allows and can lead to abuse of the position - whether it is intentional abuse or not.

 

This type of foundation and abuse is rife throughout western history, thus the change of focus to the individual - (democracy etc) It is born of continual abuse of these types of elevated positions. The elevated persons position is seen as an indication that something is wrong and needs to be suspected not bowed down to. We have put into place checks and balances of people in authoritative roles (think college of physicians, scientific method, etc not just democracy), simply because history has taught us that if we do not at least attempt to hold the people at the helm accountable then the consequences can be dire. It is not to say these things work effectively, it is to say the doubting western mind has developed this way for good reason.

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2010 by -O-

[nac]

Awesome! This is the book that got me into Buddhism.

[C T]

Thank you for that.

So I guess what gets my ire up is the idea of an absolute enlightenment - a destination... or some line that once crossed now allows for that individual to be some sort of authority on truth or reality - when IME I find it is still (enlightenment) relative. And the only difference between the sparkly moments and spiky ones is the context o the experience.

 

This context is intrinsically made up of things like, belief, concept and language- meaning. All the same stuff of delusion and illusion. Today’s enlightenment is tomorrows ignorance (thus kill Buddha on the path). So this idea that venerated souls have some monopoly on wisdom, clarity, truth IMHO is bollocks. What they have is a well constructed framework which allows them to convey a context to this type of experience. That context may be made up of Eastern or Western thought, Buddhist or Taoist concepts, or existential thought etc. These particular types of frameworks are intrinsically focussed on experience itself, reality, illusion etc. so one can be lead down the path that if these framework is understood then anything pertaining to reality, illusion, experience etc is thus understood. And this is false.

 

I have know a few - some very very adept individuals - some would (and I did at the time) consider enlightened - and over time their own person issues/limitations to the context of their experience have shone through as brightly as their enlightenment. Issue here is if we are to hold this idea of an absolute awareness that these individuals have attained then we are establishing a context which ignores important information (for instance these are humans with normal human flaws) which leads to greater ignorance - more delusion. Again, the need to strip the gurus.

 

We are also actively taught that if we are not humble enough to bow at their feet - or do not do some mental house cleaning regarding doubts that we have of them, then we are not worthy students. All of these things are said about not being able to learn if you are doubting teacher etc... when really the arguments being made are pretty weak.

 

What it comes down to is a single person cannot effectively teach a group of people if there are a handful who monopolise time with critical questions - an individual cannot keep a group of people cohesively committed and progressing if they are processing through doubts that may rise from these questions.... it has little to do with actual teachings and more to do with the logistics of teaching - especially when 90% of the time the answer is "keep practicing and it will come clear".

 

This is fine if it were presented in this context - call a spade a spade - but it is not. It is presented as individuals which have cross some line, graduated to some level, crossed some stream which demands our unquestioning respect and devotion. If we are not willing to give it then we are not worthy. This then is the planted seed, the cornerstone in the foundation which allows and can lead to abuse of the position - whether it is intentional abuse or not.

 

This type of foundation and abuse is rife throughout western history, thus the change of focus to the individual - (democracy etc) It is born of continual abuse of these types of elevated positions. The elevated persons position is seen as an indication that something is wrong and needs to be suspected not bowed down to. We have put into place checks and balances of people in authoritative roles (think college of physicians, scientific method, etc not just democracy), simply because history has taught us that if we do not at least attempt to hold the people at the helm accountable then the consequences can be dire. It is not to say these things work effectively, it is to say the doubting western mind has developed this way for good reason.

I can understand where most of your points are coming from. You have articulated well - many thanks for that.

 

I just want to add that i too, have had the affinity to meet many teachers in the few years i have tried to broaden my spiritual understanding, and thus far have not met one who was arrogant enough to proclaim that somehow they are in possession of a kind of secret higher knowledge and ought to be kowtowed to based on that. This is just my personal experience, which in no way is a suggestion that i am so naive as to say that there are no scoundrels out there. Of course there are, within all traditions. Even the real masters themselves acknowledge this.

 

The ideas of subservience to a physical person (as in gurus) when one embarks on the spiritual path are all based on false understanding, and more often than not, completely blown out of context. No true masters expect such subservience, yet they are the ones who are often paid the highest homage. We need to investigate why this is so, and to do this, we cannot simply lump all the apples into one basket, and proclaim there, these guys are all the same - this is not investigation, more like accusations. Individual gurus have individual merits. Should we feel the need to venerate, perhaps more than the person, is the veneration of merits, those that we ourselves aspire to realize. Ultimately, whatever humility is offered up, with hearts and minds opened, can only do more good than harm.

Edited May 17, 2010 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

If you are referring to me, I said they invented the category of neurotic conditioning. The Buddhists talk ad infinitum about neurotic conditioning. I sat through many teachings and I grew weary of hearing how deluded we are. The Tibetan Buddhist system is a patriarchy of men sitting on their thrones and dispensing judgment.

 

 

ralis

 

LOL! Some of them do come off like this... indeed. It all depends on which Rinpoche you come across... not all of them are very inspired or inspirational and the title Rinpoche does not automatically denote enlightenment. Again... it seems your karma is hampering your outer and inner experience of Buddhism. That could change.

[Vajrahridaya]

Awesome! This is the book that got me into Buddhism.

 

LOL! Really?

[Vajrahridaya]

The idea that I am not enlightened now is to say there is an inherent flaw, don't you see the very concept of enlightenment and attainment of it draws a line of duality - enlightened vs deluded. The rest is semantical gymnastics.

 

Yes of course, and Buddhism recognizes this. The initial idea is just to meet your duality with a duality in order to help you gain an understanding of why you suffer psychologically. "Oh, I suffer because I'm not awake to my inner conditions!" Then... they go into other ways of discussion that are more non-dual. You are inherently luminous but just forget it.

 

Are you absolutely free from psychological suffering to the point of total and blissful pleasure as well as omniscience as to the nature of everything? If not... then the first duality does apply to you and me as well. But, just don't take it seriously, because it's a duality that is meant to merely lead to inner questioning of ones own state of perception.