Less than perfect Guru's

[Jetsun]

 

Absolute, authentic ego death, I do believe it's possible.

 

 

For something to die it has to exist in the first place, which is one of the tricks of this human game: trying to change/improve/get rid of something which doesn't even exist. 

 

But ego is a tricky word, even the fully enlightened ones had some kind of individual psyche after enlightenment, Jesus was a very different character to Buddha for example, so I think some kind of ego comes along with being in the human body, but it doesn't mean you have to be fully identified with and attached to it. 

[3bob]

Jetsun,  what you are saying could also be used to say that there is no suffering or it doesn't exist - but since that would be counter to and is not a Buddhist teaching it goes to show that you've come up with your own variation that is not Buddhist (if that happens to be where you coming from?)...

[johndoe2012]

If there is no ego then what guides the body to survive, keep the conditioned mind able to drive cars, operate machinery and have a personality?

 

Ego death is just self suppression, since you'll have an ego as long as you are human.

 

It is just not what you are.

[3bob]

egotism can be gross or subtle, regardless of that it is one clever s.o.b. and it takes help to reveal it to and keep it under the light of Spirit where it loses power and dies.

[johndoe2012]

Buddha, Jesus you can still communicate with them, and check their consciousness.

 

No need to rely on books and scripture.

 

Of course you are limited by your own level of consciousness.

[johndoe2012]

Death of ego is an opinion, no?

 

Since I've heard awakened teachers talk about ego after awakening.

 

Maybe you mean mind?

 

Ego is a Freudian term?

[Jetsun]

Jetsun,  what you are saying could also be used to say that there is no suffering or it doesn't exist - but since that would be counter to and is not a Buddhist teaching it goes to show that you've come up with your own variation that is not Buddhist (if that happens to be where you coming from?)...

 

I'm not specifically coming from a Buddhist understanding, i'm not purposely trying to anyway.

 

But no-self is a pretty common teaching in Buddhism and the perspective that there isn't suffering is valid from a certain perspective, so I don't see any contradiction with Buddhist teachings in what I said.

[Bindi]

Death of ego is an opinion, no?

 

Since I've heard awakened teachers talk about ego after awakening.

 

Maybe you mean mind?

 

Ego is a Freudian term?

Pretty well everything in the spiritual arena is an opinion.

 

So called awakened teachers also have just an opinion.

 

Muktananda's own spiritual failing is surely an example of someone who might claim to be awakened having in no way arrived at a point beyond ego.

 

A thousand cases of teachers not shifting beyond the constraints of ego doesn't prove that it is impossible to develop beyond this self-serving function.

[Jonesboy]

It proves it is rare. That one can have a lot of gifts but still get caught up in attachments.

 

He is a perfect example.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Jonesboy

[3bob]

Jetsun,

Where does it say or imply in Buddhism that there "isn't any suffering" ?  (along with a solution to same)  There are the Four Noble Truths along with the Noble Eight fold path that addresses most all the details of Buddhism to reduce and overcome the many forms of suffering, thus they contradict what you are saying... but if you or someone else can point out Buddhist doctrine that says there is no suffering I'd like to see it...

Edited January 6, 2016 by 3bob

[3bob]

Bindi,

 

Un-develop might be or convey a better connotation,  for Self needs no development, no refinement and thus no add-on's.

although soul as directed by Spirit needs development as a matrix for Self to work through but that's it...

[Jetsun]

Jetsun,

Where does it say or imply in Buddhism that there "isn't any suffering" ?  (along with a solution to same)  There are the Four Noble Truths along with the Noble Eight fold path that addresses most all the details of Buddhism to reduce and overcome the many forms of suffering, thus they contradict what you are saying... but if you or someone else can point out Buddhist doctrine that says there is no suffering I'd like to see it...

 

From the perspective that everything is of Buddha nature then where is suffering found?

 

Happiness is utterly pure and suffering is utterly pure. In the ultimate space of Kuntuzangpo, there are no differences between happiness and suffering, just as there are no differences between inside and outside.

- Penetrating Wisdom - Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche 

[Bindi]

Bindi,

 

Un-develop might be or convey a better connotation,  for Self needs no development, no refinement and thus no add-on's.

although soul as directed by Spirit needs development as a matrix for Self to work through but that's it...

My perspective is my lower case 's' self working towards my upper case 'S' Self. I would express it (at this point in time) specifically as my consciousness moving towards Ajna. My actual experience of this is bringing light to bear on my emotional hijackers and aspects of my persona that are supported by my ego. I personally don't try to work from the perspective of my 'Self', which I don't currently identify with, except insofar as I try to listen to the voice of my Self, which I do hear and trust, in the hope that one day I will be able to simply and authentically identify with my Self.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bindi

[3bob]

Jetsun,

 

 your quote does not cover the historic Buddha speaking of suffering as was previously mentioned, thus suffering can not be written off with non-duality stuff - even if there are such aspects of interpretation and the recounting of such experience .

Edited January 7, 2016 by 3bob

[Creation]

I think the expectation that great spiritual beings fit our standard of perfection is horribly cruel to them.  Especially those that don't even have to bother being here and do so out of compassion.  

 

I don't have the idea that someone who experiences enlightenment will never experience anger or lust or ego.  They are not living in caves, they need a certain amount of vibrancy in their body to do things like travel all over the world giving teachings to thousands of people, and vibrancy in the body = amplification of anger, lust and ego.  Presumably they are also very sensitive to the mental/emotional states and karma of others, and so are dealing with all of that.  Then there are universal level energies they are probably tapped into that most people are not even aware of, and they might not have completely transcended that even if they are light years beyond ordinary people.  So the fact that they are as stable as they are is already huge.  

 

That is just about the raw energy of anger, lust, and ego.  Then there is the issue of morality being mostly if not completely conventional.  Sai Baba massaged the genitals of some male disciples in a completely non sexual way, and people act like he was some kind of monster for it, and say he was a total charlatan.  How absurd!  Maybe he had some reason for doing that that he knew he couldn't explain to them because they wouldn't be able to see beyond social programming.  Someone who by all accounts was off the charts enlightened should at least get the benefit of the doubt.  This is especially compared to "gurus" who were actually abusive.  If you read the stories about Swami Satyananda of the Bihar School of Yoga, that is someone who I consider genuinely immoral.  But in between there is a lot of grey area.  Someone mentioned Muktananda acting like he was "above the law".  Is the law the same as morality?  Generally speaking, a person who feels radically different from those around him will have much more trouble following with the conventions of others.  And this is just the case with highly spiritually advanced people, even more so than ordinary people who feel different: it's not just that their personality, etc. is different, but the entire way that they perceive reality is different.  Now, I believe that as a being develops spiritually, there should be a corresponding development of morality into something "post conventional" (see Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development), but this is a personal process and I would be very wary of judging someone who has been through this process as having come to the "wrong" conclusion.  In the end, the only real law is cause and effect.  

 

This is something that I have thought about a fair amount.  

Edited January 7, 2016 by Creation

[3bob]

many of us have flashes of (or experiences) enlightenment, only a few are enlightenment itself walking around and not falling back to the states of mind you speak of. (which is where cause and effect take place)

[Bindi]

 

That is just about the raw energy of anger, lust, and ego.  Then there is the issue of morality being mostly if not completely conventional.  Sai Baba massaged the genitals of some male disciples in a completely non sexual way, and people act like he was some kind of monster for it, and say he was a total charlatan.  How absurd!   

 

Have you ever considered why Sai Baba's female disciples didn't get genital massaging shaktipat?

 

A documented overview of the history and extent of the

alleged sexual abuses by Sathya Sai Baba and the questions they raise.

 

The organised cover-up, rationalising and defense of pedophile activities

 

http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/6/saisex6.htm#prt5

Edited January 7, 2016 by Bindi

[johndoe2012]

One person's saintly avatar, another person's horrible abuser

 

https://brontebaxter.wordpress.com/blowing-the-whistle-chpt-9-amma-the-mother-saint-hugging-away-your-personhood/

 

about Amma, the hugging saint.

 

Personally I feel that some of the stories are "what people need" in order to move on - sometimes real abuse is taking place while people in denial have strong reactions and try to cover up for their wonderful Guru.

[johndoe2012]

Pretty well everything in the spiritual arena is an opinion.

 

So called awakened teachers also have just an opinion.

 

Muktananda's own spiritual failing is surely an example of someone who might claim to be awakened having in no way arrived at a point beyond ego.

 

A thousand cases of teachers not shifting beyond the constraints of ego doesn't prove that it is impossible to develop beyond this self-serving function.

 

It could be a pointer to stop fighting your ego since it just reinforces it.

 

Going beyond the ego in terms of compassion is easier I've heard some people point out - giving the ego an incentive to follow the nice feelings and then suddenly voila ! 

[johndoe2012]

Pretty well everything in the spiritual arena is an opinion.

 

So called awakened teachers also have just an opinion.

 

Muktananda's own spiritual failing is surely an example of someone who might claim to be awakened having in no way arrived at a point beyond ego.

 

A thousand cases of teachers not shifting beyond the constraints of ego doesn't prove that it is impossible to develop beyond this self-serving function.

 

What is your definition of ego then?

 

Just to enhance the communication and not rely on assumptions.

[Jetsun]

One person's saintly avatar, another person's horrible abuser

 

https://brontebaxter.wordpress.com/blowing-the-whistle-chpt-9-amma-the-mother-saint-hugging-away-your-personhood/

 

about Amma, the hugging saint.

 

Personally I feel that some of the stories are "what people need" in order to move on - sometimes real abuse is taking place while people in denial have strong reactions and try to cover up for their wonderful Guru.

 

 

http://letterstothemother.com/examma/

 

"Dear All,

Some years ago, I made a long list of allegations about Amma and her ashram on the Ex Amma forum. Over time, I have come to realize that these allegations were not based in fact but were really projections of my own inner negativities. At that time, I also misrepresented facts and altered the record to justify my leaving. I have gone through a long process of introspection, and I feel it is important for me to set the record straight. I apologize for writing so much here. Back then, I wrote a lot of untruths and misinterpretations. Now I feel it is important for me to address them individually....."

 

 

Not all allegations are true, especially with Guru's, as it is their job to bring your Kleshas to the surface and if you aren't ready to face them then you disown them by reflecting them back onto the Guru as the cause. 

 

But it is pretty much impossible to find anyone without any criticism at all, even the Dalai Lama has a bunch of angry Scottish people screaming at him that he is a liar every time he comes to Europe.

[gatito]

But it is pretty much impossible to find anyone without any criticism at all, even the Dalai Lama has a bunch of angry Scottish people screaming at him that he is a liar every time he comes to Europe.

 

Who are these people?

 

Do you know why they're so angry?

[9th]

But it is pretty much impossible to find anyone without any criticism at all, even the Dalai Lama has a bunch of angry Scottish people screaming at him that he is a liar every time he comes to Europe.

 

Those arent the only people pissed off at the Dalai Lama. 

 

The Dalai Lama publicly rejected The Yellow Book which could only damage the common cause of the Tibetan people because of its sectarian divisiveness. In a series of talks, he sought to undermine the status elevation of Dorje Shugden by reaffirming the centrality of the traditional supramundane protectors of the Gelug tradition. He also vehemently rejected Dorje Shugden’s associated sectarianism, emphasising that all the Tibetan traditions are ‘equally profound dharmas’ and defending the ‘unbiased and eclectic’ approach to Buddhist practice as exemplified by the Second, Third and Fifth Dalai Lamas.

 

Scholar Donald Lopez explains that “The Dalai Lama’s renunciation of Shugden in 1976 caused great discord within the Geluk community, where devotion to the deity remained strong among the Geluk hierarchy and among large factions of the refugee lay community; spirited defenses of his worship were written and published. Some went so far as to claim that the Dalai Lama was not the true Dalai Lama, that the search party had selected the wrong child forty years before”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

[Bindi]

http://letterstothemother.com/examma/

 

"Dear All,

Some years ago, I made a long list of allegations about Amma and her ashram on the Ex Amma forum. Over time, I have come to realize that these allegations were not based in fact but were really projections of my own inner negativities. At that time, I also misrepresented facts and altered the record to justify my leaving. I have gone through a long process of introspection, and I feel it is important for me to set the record straight. I apologize for writing so much here. Back then, I wrote a lot of untruths and misinterpretations. Now I feel it is important for me to address them individually....."

 

 

Not all allegations are true, especially with Guru's, as it is their job to bring your Kleshas to the surface and if you aren't ready to face them then you disown them by reflecting them back onto the Guru as the cause. 

 

But it is pretty much impossible to find anyone without any criticism at all, even the Dalai Lama has a bunch of angry Scottish people screaming at him that he is a liar every time he comes to Europe.

 

 

I would consider myself mostly unbiased about Amma, if anything i might have had a slight pro-Amma bias. 

 

Reading up on Amma, i wouldn't discount her energy transmission, but i would question the Indian guru/ashram model. Too much money, too much power, and these guru's are seemingly worse off at the end of the trip than at the beginning. 

 

Amma's indiscretions are not at all in the same class as previously mentioned gurus, but nor is she squeaky clean. I guess if you get a lot out of it, you have to accept that Amma has human failings, magnified by the temptations to earthly power that are her current reality. 

[Bindi]

It could be a pointer to stop fighting your ego since it just reinforces it.

 

Going beyond the ego in terms of compassion is easier I've heard some people point out - giving the ego an incentive to follow the nice feelings and then suddenly voila ! 

 

For me, ego and persona need to be demolished and then restructured, I don’t see any easy way to do that, but i'm pretty happy to go the long hard way anyway, as it seems more thorough to me.

 

A possible definition of ego from http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritual-practice/steps-of-spiritual-practice/how-to-reduce-ego/what-is-ego-definition/ :

 

In layman’s terms one can define ego as pride about oneself. Thoughts such as my body and mind, my intellect, my life, my wealth, my children, I should acquire happiness, etc. arise from ego alone.

 

Ego, awareness of the self, pride, conceit and ‘i’ness are words related to the word ‘ego’ but on a psychological plane.

 

The most spiritual definition - depending on the level of our ego, we identify with the God-principle within us, i.e. the Soul to varying degrees. If our ego is high, we identify less with the Soul or the God-principle within us.