Big Boys Gone Bad

[cloud recluse]

So, does anyone want to talk big-name Gurus, the good & the bad in them ? The guys who seem to start with radical insight but then fizzle or explode .

 

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT SIMPLISTIC MUCKRAKING HERE,I have NO interest in that.Its more about the stumbling blocks that await us all from the very SUCCESS of our yogas.

 

Particularly how valid transpersonal events come with their own subsequent risks, & to what extent we can prepare for this beforehand. I figure if we look at the 'Big Boys', we may see these very patterns lit large.

 

I have my own pet theories ( ripped off from others), & I think there is genuinely valid reasons for a BALANCED discussion of some VERY complex & influential charachters.

 

Anyone up for it ?

Edited September 22, 2007 by cloud recluse

[freeform]

Anyone up for it ?

 

yeah I'd like to see where it leads.

 

Certainly Crowley and Osho are good candidates...

[cloud recluse]

yeah I'd like to see where it leads.

 

Certainly Crowley and Osho are good candidates...

 

Groovy.

 

Crowley & Rajneesh are good examples of genuine spiritual intent mixed in with other motives. This is the kind of meaty stuff Im interested in.

 

OK,basic conversation starter; Potent transpersonal experiences ( with both Da & Osho it seems to have been kundalini related....sort of) occuring in a psyche that fears its own human vulnerabilities are quickly appropriated in trying to 'remove' that human need from the sense of self. The guru-trip ( to distinguish this from valid gurus) is the use of archaic spiritual models to justify this. Fleeing the risks of intimacy usually involves pursuing the acquisition of power, building up a nice,safe inhuman wall.

Edited September 21, 2007 by cloud recluse

[三江源]

It's very useful for people to know that upping your energy levels etc can lead to destabilisation. It can give the shadow plenty of energy to play with.

 

I have come across it in my life, but I dont know anything about these Big Boys. I'll read the thread with interest though.

 

I've learned to avoid those who have chi induced paranoia and delusions of grandeur in real life. I hope.

[rain]

got no bad story 'bout noone, cause im on my own bad trip caused by myself

just another relevant book

 

"Feet Of Clay (Paperback)

by Anthony Storr (Author) "

[Taoist81]

yeah I'd like to see where it leads.

 

Certainly Crowley and Osho are good candidates...

Interesting picks: Crowley a man who specifically avoided "the appearance of paying for spiritual teaching" and set up his order (a.'.a.'. not oto) with the requirement that no one accept money for teaching. And Osho, who dubbed himself the "rich man's guru". Not to knock Osho by any means (and it is by no means to say that Crowley was in it only for others. He had his prejudices and problems), he had a lot of interesting things to say. This is just to say, "interesting picks".

[freeform]

Interesting picks: Crowley a man who specifically avoided "the appearance of paying for spiritual teaching" and set up his order (a.'.a.'. not oto) with the requirement that no one accept money for teaching. And Osho, who dubbed himself the "rich man's guru". Not to knock Osho by any means (and it is by no means to say that Crowley was in it only for others. He had his prejudices and problems), he had a lot of interesting things to say. This is just to say, "interesting picks".

 

 

I like Crowley - the story - not sure I would like the actual man. He was instrumental in bringing eastern spirituality to the west - yoga was unheard of before him. The guy was a catalyst - he sparked off things that were both good and bad - he has many fantastic consciousness expanding excersises and brought many secretive practices out to the public... he was also a great mountaineer lol

 

Just like Osho, though, his personal internal battles were not integrated - so you see these battles taking on external forms. He certainly 'used' people like Osho did - not to the extent and severity, maybe even not on purpose - his abilities were not refined so people tended to worship him and then go crazy without him - even though he emphasised individuality...

 

I had a little read about Osho from the link Thelerner posted on another thread (http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html) - it confirmed my initial idea that he had a highly realised awareness (upper dan tien centered) but a complete disconnection with the earth (his body) and eventually humanity (his heart)... that's why people felt he was enlightened - it seems he had this incredible awareness and when he narrowed it in on one person or a group, it had a very powerfull subjective effect on them... I've got a feeling that he's a type 3 on the enneagram, which means he has this amazing ability to focus, but also a yearning to expand his self-image...

 

I'm sure he started out with a big heart, but what happens when you are elevated 'above' others is that you lose this connection with others and your heart, and instead, start to connect with all the unintegrated personal shadow aspects that start to run his life... having no earth connection meant that he did not feel the emptiness of his illusions and the pain of his shadow - so this pain and shadow started externalising both in his behaviour and the behaviour of his organisation...

 

his illnesses (and his drug-taking to counteract them) exemplify this disconnection from earth...

 

ofcourse these are all my personal and rather dubious views that are all subject to change...

[Pietro]

I am someone who goes to Osho retreats, but does not follow Osho.

I go to Osho groups mostly for the people, the celebration, and a few meditations. And mostly because I am not aware of taoist groups getting together to celebrate life, and I find their way of living is not that far from taoists.

 

I think in some ways Osho really got some things very well. I think of a book: Why Should I Grieve Now?: On Facing a Loss and Letting Go which takes a story from Chuang Tzu and expands it into a full book of teachings. And it makes so much sense.

And again how I found other stories from Chuang Tzu being exposed and become so clear suddenly.

 

But then I think of how he attacked religion and any spiritual group without a living enlightened person, and I see his group now that he is dead.

 

In short I now put him in the same category of Castaneda: people that said interesting things, but where the work of dividing the good part from the rest is just too long and risky, making the whole teachings now not a good deal timewise.

[三江源]

I am someone who goes to Osho retreats, but does not follow Osho.

I go to Osho groups mostly for the people, the celebration, and a few meditations. And mostly because I am not aware of taoist groups getting together to celebrate life, and I find their way of living is not that far from taoists.

 

 

It would be perfect if there were taoist groups getting together to celibrate life.

[lino]

I like Crowley - the story - not sure I would like the actual man. He was instrumental in bringing eastern spirituality to the west - yoga was unheard of before him. The guy was a catalyst - he sparked off things that were both good and bad - he has many fantastic consciousness expanding excersises and brought many secretive practices out to the public... he was also a great mountaineer lol

 

Just like Osho, though, his personal internal battles were not integrated - so you see these battles taking on external forms. He certainly 'used' people like Osho did - not to the extent and severity, maybe even not on purpose - his abilities were not refined so people tended to worship him and then go crazy without him - even though he emphasised individuality...

 

I had a little read about Osho from the link Thelerner posted on another thread (http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html) - it confirmed my initial idea that he had a highly realised awareness (upper dan tien centered) but a complete disconnection with the earth (his body) and eventually humanity (his heart)... that's why people felt he was enlightened - it seems he had this incredible awareness and when he narrowed it in on one person or a group, it had a very powerfull subjective effect on them... I've got a feeling that he's a type 3 on the enneagram, which means he has this amazing ability to focus, but also a yearning to expand his self-image...

 

I'm sure he started out with a big heart, but what happens when you are elevated 'above' others is that you lose this connection with others and your heart, and instead, start to connect with all the unintegrated personal shadow aspects that start to run his life... having no earth connection meant that he did not feel the emptiness of his illusions and the pain of his shadow - so this pain and shadow started externalising both in his behaviour and the behaviour of his organisation...

 

his illnesses (and his drug-taking to counteract them) exemplify this disconnection from earth...

 

ofcourse these are all my personal and rather dubious views that are all subject to change...

 

"Rajneesh often asked women half his age to strip in front of him so that he could "feel their chakras." To facilitate this practice, he installed an electric lock on his bedroom door that could be activated from a button on his desk. Rajneesh groped the breasts of two of my women friends and "felt the chakras" of a third. I soon began to realize that like so many other girl grabbing Indian gurus who had made the headlines, Rajneesh on the human level was just an ordinary sexually immature Indian male. My lady friend who suffered the chakra feeling incident was so put off that she never came back to see him again. He had told her "Don't worry. You are mine now." That grasping statement had chilled her as much as the sexual advance. The young woman was a student of Indian music and had previously been sexually exploited by a famous Indian musician. She knew first hand what many Indian men were like. Rajneesh proved himself to be predictably and disappointingly the same. "

 

"Feeling their chakras"?????

 

At first this paragraph was hilarious, the ending was kind of scary.

[Yoda]

Pumping up energy levels can be destabilizing.

 

Working too high on the chakras is destabilizing.

 

Working too much with the fire element is destabilizing.

 

Teaching strict celibacy and other strict disciplines, especially in America, is destabilizing.

 

Working too much with energy and not enough with meditation is destabilizing.

 

Attracting lots of followers on the very edge is destabilizing.

 

 

 

Every angle about 'what went wrong' has something to it, imo.

 

 

 

I think the biggest ingredient is that the drifting master has commonly been a genius type who hasn't needed to forge and then later maintain very close ties to their own gurus and lineage. Like Da Free John and Osho being extreme examples.

 

But teachers like Yogananda, Vivekananda and Suzuki Roshi who spoke often and highly of their teachers and lineage seemed to live a lifestyle a bit more in line with their ideals.

 

Of course simply lowering the bar from ideals of lifelong celibacy to simply being considerate would be a good move too.

[Pero]

The tittle of this topic sounds like a tittle of a porno.

Sorry, carry on.

[VeeCee]

The tittle of this topic sounds like a tittle of a porno.

Sorry, carry on.

 

Actually - that might make an amusing thread all by itself.

 

 

"Feeling their chakras"?????

 

Is that what they're calling it now days? Actually, it's not funny - I'm sure it was very emotionally traumatic for the women to be abused by someone they admired and respected.

[Pietro]

It would be perfect if there were taoist groups getting together to celibrate life.

 

Yeah, like the buddha field but a tao-field. With the taoist practices, taoist meditation, tai ji and taoist ethics (i.e. personal, not externally imposed).

 

Count me in. We should organise it for the summer. Maybe one in Europe and if the Usa bums are up to it, they should have one too.

[cloud recluse]

The tittle of this topic sounds like a tittle of a porno. :lol

 

I was intially tempted to call it "When Good Gurus attack"

 

Seriously though. I have got the impression that the damamging gurus, the ones who,in actual personal contact, seem to damage the vitality of their disciples, are usually male. Are there many destructive female gurus out there ? Anyone know ?

[lino]

I was intially tempted to call it "When Good Gurus attack"

 

Seriously though. I have got the impression that the damamging gurus, the ones who,in actual personal contact, seem to damage the vitality of their disciples, are usually male. Are there many destructive female gurus out there ? Anyone know ?

 

Does Witch count?

[cloud recluse]

- I'm sure it was very emotionally traumatic for the women to be abused by someone they admired and respected.

 

Actually, one issue this is brings up is that of Gurus reinforcing patriachial programming in their female students through sex.

 

There is a great book WOMEN AND MADNESS by Phyllis Chesler. It makes the point that, in a patriarchail society, women are programmed to seek,please & unite with father figures.An essentially disempowering program that is further amplified by sexual abuse & manipulation.

 

Now you can legitimately argue that consenting sex between adults, including guru & disciple, isnt 'wrong' . But for a guru, whatever their intention, to reinforce this classic program is incredibly destuctive & selfish.

 

Chesler doesnt address gurus specifically in her work, shes more concerned with Psychologists that seduce their patients, but the equivalence & relevance here is blindingly obvious !

 

Why cant an alleged 'Guru' have a fairly basic insight into the damage thay can do & so easily avoid ? Wouldnt it be nice to have qualities like WISDOM & INSIGHT into the disciples condition! Cant we expect at least that from someone purporting to be a teacher.

 

If you fancy yourself as a 'Teacher', you should at least have the insight to be able to acknowledge your own adolescent wank-fantasy & NOT inflict it on the vulnerable !!!! Using trusting students for porn is pretyy pathetic. !!

 

I dont have a problem with rambunctious rabelasian gurus, I just expect a bit more from them than teenage egoity.

 

got no bad story 'bout noone, cause im on my own bad trip caused by myself

just another relevant book

 

"Feet Of Clay (Paperback)

by Anthony Storr (Author) "

 

Hell,so am I, but its not stopping me But if you can actually admit that you are on a bad trip, that allready puts you way ahead of some of 'Masters".

 

FEET OF CLAY is an excellent choice too.

[doc benway]

I think that there can be a dramatic difference between spirtiual awakening/enlightenment/insight, whatever you want to call it, and self awareness/psychic health. I think that you can be pretty out of touch with your emotions, motivation, or have significant psychopathology and yet achieve or channel a profound level of insight or connection. Why should it be that awakening brings with it a particular morality or code of ethics? Beyond awakening, we are still human until death, period. If we have a fucked up psyche, that may continue despite waking up. If we believe that the Dao does not judge, has no particular morality.... why should enlightenment be associated with any particular type of morality or human behavior? Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley, Sai Baba, all examples of profoundly insightful men with personality disorders/mental illness/drug addiction... In addition, assuming someone has advanced or heightened awareness or insight, they will be much more likely to pursue a path of preaching/guru-hood/spiritual leadership if they have some degree of ego-need or megalomania. After all, the way of nature/Dao is the way of finding the lowest point, not the highest. Wu dei is not consistent with expousing one's spiritual accomplishments, even under duress. In my own experience, meditation and growing insight have not only not lessened my psychological stress, but have made me much more acutely aware of issues in my life that are painful and unpleasant. Cultivation and mindfullness are very valuable and useful to me and have helped me to deal with emotional suffering but I really don't see that they've changed my fundamental nature all that much.

[cloud recluse]

Xuesheng,

I reckon youve touched on a very important question here. It may actually involve afew specific issues, so I will beg your patience while I pretty much make it up as I go along.

 

I think there IS a 'morality' of Enlightenment, though not necesarily as a legalistic code.

 

Essentially, if you have an exotic experience in one 'part' of your life, but the rest of your day-to-day Intentionality contradicts it. its not Enlightenment.. To have a Vision of unity, but spend most of your actual time exemplifying radical seperation is not Enlightenment.. The "morality" of Enlightement would be a theme, flexible but consisitent, of unity, of non-obsession.

 

If my day to day intentions ( whatever the consequence they end up as ) are based on avision of internal poverty, of desperate compusive obsession, then it CONTRADICTS the spiritual visions I may have temporarily experienced. If I am Enlightened , my Intentions would be congruent with that vision.

 

Now my Intentions may not always work out as planned ,& I will still have unconscious material yet to emerge, BUT WHETHER OR NOT I ADMIT MY ERRORS & ACKNOWLEDGE MY INEVITABLE SHORTCOMINGS (which the aforementioned "Big Boys" seem to have serious difficulty with ) would be the deciding factor.

 

Having a vision of the possibilties of Enlightenment, and then deliberately opting for Egoity, is not CONGRUENT with that vision.

 

"Morality" would then be the training of your Intentionality to reflect that Vision in the interpersonal sphere AND ones own intrapsychic sphere, the social & the psychological.

 

So perhaps thats not 'morality' in the comventional sense, but I think it does reflect a kind of standard, one of CONGRUENT INTENTION.

 

In practical terms it would be fully Accepting your own humanity,& fully acknowledging the humanity of others.Not in an indulgent sense,but in a responsible sense.

 

Another broader theme that inform on Enlightened ethic would be Reverence, a valuing of phenomena as the endless productions of the Dao. Etenity in Love with the Productions of Time, as per William Blake.

 

Osho seemed to show considerable cruelty & contempt for his disciples & the natural world, once the intial comforting 'glow' of his experince faded,& he was thrown back onto his own humanity again. And Da Free Johns tantrums are pretty well attested to.

 

Its one thing to have a tantrum, its another thing to deny it.WHY ARE THESE GURUS SO CRUEL TO THEMSELVES. they really seem to make erasing human feeling part of their aspirations !

 

So, doesnt all this hint at a kind of morality, the consequence of Enlightenment for the human condition ?

[cloud recluse]

..... Cultivation and mindfullness are very valuable and useful to me and have helped me to deal with emotional suffering but I really don't see that they've changed my fundamental nature all that much.

 

I love this point, because now we are really getting into it.

 

Bear in mind that Cultivation & Mindfulness cannot be Enlightenment in themselves. And its not a question of changing your FUNDAMENTAL nature at all.

 

Enlightenment is the dropping of a futile theme, egoity ( in the Eastern sense of "Ego", not Western psychologies) is a contrived struggle we inflict on ourselves. Enlightenment liberates your fundamental nature, making it clear & obvious. The only change is the dropping of an unreasonable burden.

 

The 'ego' is not your fundamental nature.

 

Enlightened morality would be no longer acting AS IF you were the ego,no longer engaging in the ego-projects that tie us in ugly knots, no longer living from its bitterness & fear, EVEN IF BITTERNESS & FEAR STILL ARISE AS CONDITIONED HABITS.

 

This includes not convulsing in shame when old habits still arise, the shame that tempts us into social & mental evasion.

 

So i suppose,for me, Enlightened Ethics are a kind of ongoing Yoga.

 

THATS MY POINT.

 

Now, does it make any sense ?

Edited September 22, 2007 by cloud recluse

[VeeCee]

got no bad story 'bout noone, cause im on my own bad trip caused by myself

just another relevant book

 

"Feet Of Clay (Paperback)

by Anthony Storr (Author) "

 

Interesting quote on Amazon.com in the review of this book:

"The wisest men follow their own direction and listen to no prophet guiding them. " - Euripedes

Something to consider.

 

V.

[Todd]

 

So i suppose,for me, Enlightened Ethics are a kind of ongoing Yoga.

 

THATS MY POINT.

 

Now, does it make any sense ?

 

 

Makes sense to me. If realization doesn't permeate our actions then it hasn't gone very far. I'm just beginning to explore this iceberg. It is interesting to watch all the ways that I inflict violence on those around me, and it is really interesting that I was almost completely unconscious of it before. This is where non-doing really pays off. To see it, and instead of reacting against it, to just watch it transform. Our example can change things faster than any words, or any intent to change.

 

An indicator that makes sense to me of someone's level of realization is the effect that he or she has on those around him or her. This effect isn't in the short term sense of experiences and changes of state, but in the long term sense of how the overall direction of peoples' lives are affected. Of course, we all have different views about what a positive outcome might be. This is where we need to search in ourselves and find our deepest honesty. Most people seem to stop short, at a desire for some thing, or some state, and thats the birth of illusion. It is a lack of integrity, and there's really not much we can do about it, but to find our own integrity, and not to give it up as soon as we enter relationship. The easist way to give it up for me is to think about someone else's seeming lack of integrity. I am starting to realize that it is my own, and that is fascinating. Its like realizing I've got a few hundred more limbs than i suspected... or at least another set of toes. Thats the sense.

 

 

As an aside, I always feel the desire to somehow indicate that everything I say is just words, that there is no "full" realization here, and even if there was, they'd still just be words. But thats assuming someone might think otherwise. Thats the beauty of words, that they solve no problems.

[doc benway]

Excellent points Cloud and Todd!

Sorry for the very wordy response... but here goes:

Perhaps one point at issue here is the definition of enlightenment. In your arguments, it seems to me that enlightenment must be a state of complete transformation. A single, quantum, permanent, unvarying event or state. Buddhists would have us believe that this is possible and was exemplified by Buddha. Daoists would have us look at the Immortals and the existing recluses and wayfarers living only for cultivation, and so on... Many yogis might qualify, etc... Is this a state that exists in life? U.G. Krishnamurti, from what little I know of his work, would probably say no. I used to believe that enlightenment was a state of perfect understanding. Now, I'm less convinced. Perhaps that's because I'm just scratching the surface, perhaps not. In my experience, it is a stepwise process of awakening and realizations. Is there an ultimate, perfect state of enlightenment that may occur during life? How could that be determined? Are the enlightened gurus and teachers that much farther along the path than you and I? How to measure that? I would agree with you that there is a tendency toward compassion and empathy as one becomes more aware and awake. When I began to cultivate, I lost my taste for meat. I'm not a strict vegetarian but meat is usually unpleasant for me now. My sense of responsibility to others and compassion have also grown. I believe that such qualities do develop as a by-product of cultivation and, presumably, the further along the path we are, the stronger these tendencies will be. My ability to detatch from emotional motivations in my behavior and my recognition that attatchment to desires is the primary illusion have developed. THese will undoubtedly continue to develop with practice. The issue is, what is the definition we're using for enlightenment and do human weaknesses, persistent illusions, earthly desires, aberrant behavior, psychopathology, addiction, and all the other bad boy traits become exclusive of the possibility of enlightment? Can we achieve perfection? Is that the prerequisite to being considered a guru or enlightened? My current answer to these questions is no, that could certainly change but it's where my head is at right now. Is J Krishnamurti more or less enlightened than U.G. Krishnamurti? How do they compare to Swami Nirmalananda who starved himself to death when he felt it was his time to go? Is Alan Watts less enlightened because he enjoyed alcohol and sex? Is Osho less enlightened because he was a megalomaniacal, greedy, selfish, abusive, exploitative, addict? What about Gurdjieff who was sexually exploitative but felt guilty about it? Osho is the extreme, Watts is more subtle, JK and UGK very sublte distinctions. My point is that when we become enlightened, we are still enlightened humans. I'm not convinced that we can go beyond our humanity in life. I don't know that I believe that, even as enlightened humans, we can expect to be able to completely shed our human traits, desires, and weaknesses. Some do a much better job than others and those are the examples I'd truly like to follow and refer to as enlightened. Does that mean that the others did not reach and experience a deeply profound connection with the lifeforce that they could pass on or use to exploit others? Are we to link a specific pattern of behavior to our definition of enlightenment? As humans we tend to make such distinctions and judgements but that's really all just illusion, anyway... isn't it?

Edited September 22, 2007 by xuesheng

[Christoph]

Excellent points Cloud and Todd!

Sorry for the very wordy response... but here goes:

Perhaps one point at issue here is the definition of enlightenment. In your arguments, it seems to me that enlightenment must be a state of complete transformation. A single, quantum, permanent, unvarying event or state. Buddhists would have us believe that this is possible and was exemplified by Buddha. Daoists would have us look at the Immortals and the existing recluses and wayfarers living only for cultivation, and so on... Many yogis might qualify, etc... Is this a state that exists in life?

 

U.G. Krishnamurti, from what little I know of his work, would probably say no. I used to believe that enlightenment was a state of perfect understanding. Now, I'm less convinced. Perhaps that's because I'm just scratching the surface, perhaps not. In my experience, it is a stepwise process of awakening and realizations. Is there an ultimate, perfect state of enlightenment that may occur during life? How could that be determined? Are the enlightened gurus and teachers that much farther along the path than you and I? How to measure that?

 

 

I would agree with you that there is a tendency toward compassion and empathy as one becomes more aware and awake. When I began to cultivate, I lost my taste for meat. I'm not a strict vegetarian but meat is usually unpleasant for me now. My sense of responsibility to others and compassion have also grown. I believe that such qualities do develop as a by-product of cultivation and, presumably, the further along the path we are, the stronger these tendencies will be. My ability to detatch from emotional motivations in my behavior and my recognition that attatchment to desires is the primary illusion have developed. THese will undoubtedly continue to develop with practice. The issue is, what is the definition we're using for enlightenment and do human weaknesses, persistent illusions, earthly desires, aberrant behavior, psychopathology, addiction, and all the other bad boy traits become exclusive of the possibility of enlightment? Can we achieve perfection? Is that the prerequisite to being considered a guru or enlightened?

 

 

My current answer to these questions is no, that could certainly change but it's where my head is at right now. Is J Krishnamurti more or less enlightened than U.G. Krishnamurti? How do they compare to Swami Nirmalananda who starved himself to death when he felt it was his time to go? Is Alan Watts less enlightened because he enjoyed alcohol and sex? Is Osho less enlightened because he was a megalomaniacal, greedy, selfish, abusive, exploitative, addict? What about Gurdjieff who was sexually exploitative but felt guilty about it? Osho is the extreme, Watts is more subtle, JK and UGK very sublte distinctions.

 

 

My point is that when we become enlightened, we are still enlightened humans. I'm not convinced that we can go beyond our humanity in life. I don't know that I believe that, even as enlightened humans, we can expect to be able to completely shed our human traits, desires, and weaknesses. Some do a much better job than others and those are the examples I'd truly like to follow and refer to as enlightened.

 

Does that mean that the others did not reach and experience a deeply profound connection with the lifeforce that they could pass on or use to exploit others? Are we to link a specific pattern of behavior to our definition of enlightenment? As humans we tend to make such distinctions and judgements but that's really all just illusion, anyway... isn't it?

[Todd]

Is there an ultimate, perfect state of enlightenment that may occur during life?

 

 

Thats a good question. I would tend to say no.

 

It is a bit ridiculous to be trying to define enlightenment, but what I am interested in and my experience seems to be pointing toward, is not a state. That enlightenment is a state is a really, really common misconception. Certain good states may tend to flow out of enlightenement, much as good actions naturally tend to flow out of enlightenment. The problem with saying that good actions flow out of enlightenment is that no one can say what a good action is. What a good action is changes, from moment to moment. This is why I like to look at the results of a person's actions. If they claim to be a spiritual teacher, a good area to look for results is: have any of their students realized a similar depth of truth? If so, how many? Just one (thats way better than most)? Or many? Do they foster depndency or do they help the student to reconnect with their own integrity? There are more questions to ask than that, such as basic questions we might ask about anyone we might choose to hang out with, but that is a good place to start.

 

What seems to be happening with Osho, etc (about whom I know very little, but assuming what Thelerner's link stated wasn't made out of whole cloth) is that there is an opening to something beyond the mind. This opening is not fully explored. What does it mean to not "fully" explore the opening? The way I'm thinking right now, which may change, is that the initial openings are more like invitations. Some people seem to take one of those invitations and put it up on their wall, as a mandate to teach, or to act like an ass. True enlightenment goes much deeper than the initial tastes. Some people may go from the intital tastes to full enlightenment in a very short time, though for most others it seems to take several years. That is what several sources that I have some trust in state, and has been my experience. I have had many initial glimpses, but no full realization. I have seen others have glimpses, and then quickly make it into a object of the ego (as do I). Its way more common than not. I'm tempted to think that it pretty much always happens this way, even with the "greats". Its just not talked about much. Regardless, they tend to do a lot of sitting, or at least not teaching, even after their "full" realization.

 

What is full realization? I can't say, but assuming glimpses contain a glimmer of truth, it is a very deep seeing through the movement of self. It is a dropping of the movement toward illusion. It goes right through our core, and we realize that there is no separation, in any aspect of our lives. We may pick up separation again, but we can never invest energy in it. This dropping of separation is actually the beginning of a never ending deepening of that realization. It never becomes frozen, which is why no one can describe it. But like I said, I can't say. Its a good question, that we can only truly explore by our own light.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Todd