Stripping The Gurus

[That Guy]

Innocent ≠ Ignorant

- That Guy

Edited March 21, 2010 by That Guy

[Pero]

I'm really sorry Hardyg but I still don't quite understand what point you're trying to make.

[That Guy]

I think his point is that who is at fault is very situation dependant and will vary.

[Pero]

Innocent ≠ Ignorant

- That Guy

 

How so in this case? I got the feeling that here innocence was talked about more like that of a baby or small child. They're ignorant. Of course if we're talking about adult people then it's not the same, like I might be innocent in that I haven't killed anyone but I'm not ignorant about what killing does/is. So here innocent ≠ ignorant. But if a child pushes his granny down the stairs for fun he'd be considered innocent because he's ignorant as to what consequences that has. So here innocent = ignorant.

[Pero]

I think his point is that who is at fault is very situation dependant and will vary.

 

Ah thanks, sure. Though personally I think fault goes both ways and perhaps who is at fault more varies.

[That Guy]

How so in this case? I got the feeling that here innocence was talked about more like that of a baby or small child. They're ignorant. Of course if we're talking about adult people then it's not the same, like I might be innocent in that I haven't killed anyone but I'm not ignorant about what killing does/is. So here innocent ≠ ignorant. But if a child pushes his granny down the stairs for fun he'd be considered innocent because he's ignorant as to what consequences that has. So here innocent = ignorant.

no.

 

Ignorance would be if the student had heard bad things this teacher had done, but chose to ignore that and continue to follow him.

 

Innocence would be if the student would not expect his guru to take his money for personal gain, he had no reason to even think that, he is innocent.

[Eviander]

Yea there all just big auras..

 

How do you know that you are realized? Is it just when people start following you

[Owledge]

no.

 

Ignorance would be if the student had heard bad things this teacher had done, but chose to ignore that and continue to follow him.

 

Innocence would be if the student would not expect his guru to take his money for personal gain, he had no reason to even think that, he is innocent.

That is what I meant. In the former case the student would have made the conscious decision to ignore the information; and act that is well-known is unwise (ignorance). In the latter case, you don't know (or less than in the first case) whether there were consciously unwise decisions involved in the great trust in the guru - whether the student had regognized and neglected opportunities in the past to reduce the degree of naivete.

[Pero]

no.

 

Ignorance would be if the student had heard bad things this teacher had done, but chose to ignore that and continue to follow him.

 

Innocence would be if the student would not expect his guru to take his money for personal gain, he had no reason to even think that, he is innocent.

 

I disagree. For me, in the first it's a willful ignorance, which can have many reasons.

For the second I guess you could say it's innocence. I see ignorance too.

[Pero]

That is what I meant. In the former case the student would have made the conscious decision to ignore the information; and act that is well-known is unwise (ignorance). In the latter case, you don't know (or less than in the first case) whether there were consciously unwise decisions involved in the great trust in the guru - whether the student had regognized and neglected opportunities in the past to reduce the degree of naivete.

 

I don't agree that ignorance = unwise. One may have made an unwise decision but it wasn't because one was ignorant of the situation.

[dwai]

:lol:

 

If you do something you wouldn't usually do based on a lie you were told, you're a victim. You been coned, lied to etc.

 

The gurus controlled people through deceitful means, they are responsible for taking advantage of the aspirants.

 

sheesh

 

"ohh westerners this westerners that, they don't understand blah blah blah...."

 

How about YOU don't understand?

 

Us "westerners" (as you have so unjudgementally labelled us all) have nothing against teachers, teachers who con others? then why yes we do well I do anyway.

 

Here is a funny story by me:

 

Westerner: Hi i would like to learn from a Guru, but I don't know about this whole guru thing...

 

Dwai: Well! You westerners just dont understand blah blah blah....

30mins later~

Dwai: ....you wont get that far without a guru you arrogant westerner.

 

Westerner: Oh wow, now that you have explained what a guru is to my western mind, I guess having one is ok and essential.

 

1 year later~

 

Dwai: Why hello westerner how are you?

 

Westerner: well... I'm ok... but... my guru... I followed his every word like I was suppose to for my spiritual development, our relationship was like the Father-child relationship, the best friend relationship, the soul-mate relationship, the brotherly relationship, the Mother-child relationship All rolled into one...

 

Dwai: well what happened?

 

Westerner: He told me I had to blow him in order to unblock my throat chakra, later he also said I had to donate all my savings to his charity so I can learn about compassion. Turns out he just likes oral and money... I just feel the lowest I ve ever felt i my entire life now...

 

Dwai: Well its your fault.

 

THE END

 

If only life was so simple. I wish I had the time or patience to spell it out for you...but you won't get it...so it's pointless. If you can manage without a teacher, well all power to you.

 

Here's a current discussion going on about one such Guru:

 

Lessons from the Swami Nithyananda Saga

 

The author of this article makes some very well thought through and cogent arguments about the "frailties and fallacies" of Spiritual Teachers.

Edited March 22, 2010 by dwai

[markern]

If only life was so simple. I wish I had the time or patience to spell it out for you...but you won't get it...so it's pointless. If you can manage without a teacher, well all power to you.

 

Here's a current discussion going on about one such Guru:

 

Lessons from the Swami Nithyananda Saga

 

The author of this article makes some very well thought through and cogent arguments about the "frailties and fallacies" of Spiritual Teachers.

 

As mentioned the problem is not having a teacher. Most if not everyone on this forum is OK with having a teacher. Most find it essential. THe problem many have is the particular type of GURU realtionship, most often found in the indian tradition, that goes waaaaay beyond what for exampl an average vipassana teachers relationship to his student would be.

[ralis]

If only life was so simple. I wish I had the time or patience to spell it out for you...but you won't get it...so it's pointless. If you can manage without a teacher, well all power to you.

 

 

 

Are you the one that is vetting all the guru's? What guru do we need during these times? Us poor deluded Westerners are just too ignorant to make correct choices!

 

Would you select after the likes of: Rashneesh, Sai Baba, etc.?

 

ralis

[C T]

Are you the one that is vetting all the guru's? What guru do we need during these times? Us poor deluded Westerners are just too ignorant to make correct choices!

 

Would you select after the likes of: Rashneesh, Sai Baba, etc.?

 

ralis

Ralis,

 

Little do you realize that without the vibrant diversity and shades that 'gurus' come in, how would you hope to learn the value of discernment and acquire the discriminating knowledge that trusting yourself demands priority above all others? Do you honestly belief that your 'been there done that' would have been possible, even valuable, as life-lessons, without the errors of individuals who chose, or was chosen for them, the label 'guru'? Without these errant sons and daughters i suspect you would not even get this opportunistic pleasure to present your cynical (even a little sick)humor here.

 

I guess there must be some dark unresolved issues within that spurs you to resort to 'poke fun at those who have been less than perfect' and have a laugh at the expense of others. Do you also poke fun at the disabled and the weak i wonder? Is this what 'been there done that' has taught you? Invaluable...

[ralis]

Ralis,

 

would not even get this opportunistic pleasure to present your cynical (even a little sick)humor here.

 

I guess there must be some dark unresolved issues within that spurs you to resort to 'poke fun at those who have been less than perfect' and have a laugh at the expense of others. Do you also poke fun at the disabled and the weak i wonder? Is this what 'been there done that' has taught you? Invaluable...

 

Sick humor? Where? I was responding to a post by Dwai where he puts down Westerners.

 

No, I don't poke fun at the disabled! You really misinterpret what I have been saying.

 

 

ralis

[That Guy]

If only life was so simple. I wish I had the time or patience to spell it out for you...but you won't get it...so it's pointless. If you can manage without a teacher, well all power to you.

 

Here's a current discussion going on about one such Guru:

 

Lessons from the Swami Nithyananda Saga

 

The author of this article makes some very well thought through and cogent arguments about the "frailties and fallacies" of Spiritual Teachers.

:lol:

More like there is nothing you can spell out that is really a strong argument for your point of view....

 

Let me spell it out to you in a simple straight forward way.

 

Point 1:

 

Teacher who teaches = OK (yes it is ok, even to us arrogant westerners)

Teacher who takes advantage of your situation = NOT OK

 

---------

 

Point 2:

 

You say guru = essential.

Therefore 1 cannot fully develop spiritually without one.

Meaning the Gurus have a monopoly on your spiritual development.

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

 

Now when someone does something they normally wouldn't, because the guru used his monopoly on your spiritual future, how can you blame the aspirants? LOL

[markern]

OK lets have a quick look at the suposedly superior judgmen of easterners when it comes to pikcing gurus. Sai Baba is one of the most, if not the most, poppular indian gurus. Many of indians top politicans are foloowers. He is also a child molestor and a proven con man (video footage to prove it). Go indians! Falun Gong is extreemly poppular in CHina. The leader is an evil nutcase wrecking havoc on the mental health and common sense of the members. So much for the superior Chineese judgment of guru picking huh!

[Owledge]

Falun Gong is extreemly poppular in CHina. The leader is an evil nutcase wrecking havoc on the mental health and common sense of the members. So much for the superior Chineese judgment of guru picking huh!

Don't you think there's at least a certain amount of government propaganda involved in this view? I mean ... considering that the Chinese government imprisons peaceful Falun Gong practitioners, kills them in prison and sells their organs to customers all over the world.

[markern]

Don't you think there's at least a certain amount of government propaganda involved in this view? I mean ... considering that the Chinese government imprisons peaceful Falun Gong practitioners, kills them in prison and sells their organs to customers all over the world.

 

Plenty of taobums have met Falun GOng practioners and can testify to all the cultish stuff so there is no questin what the organisation is. But I am sure the government ads what it can although it realy does not need to.

[altiora]

OK lets have a quick look at the suposedly superior judgmen of easterners when it comes to pikcing gurus. Sai Baba is one of the most, if not the most, poppular indian gurus. Many of indians top politicans are foloowers. He is also a child molestor and a proven con man (video footage to prove it). Go indians! Falun Gong is extreemly poppular in CHina. The leader is an evil nutcase wrecking havoc on the mental health and common sense of the members. So much for the superior Chineese judgment of guru picking huh!

 

With the greatest of respect, not one person has stated that "easterners" are somehow immune to false gurus. They do have the benefit of thousands of years of "you should know better". Some of the harshest critics of Sai Baba are Indians themselves, who rightly see through him for what he is. And I know of plenty of Chinese qigong and TCM practitioners who are quite contemptuous of Falun Gong.

 

The point is that just because there are some fake gurus doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying that there is no need for gurus. The point is that in recent times, too many westerners have been seduced by false gurus, because they thought the guru would take from them the burden of responsibility for their spiritual destiny. It just highlights the need to retain our critical faculties and to ensure boundaries with the relationship. A true guru would never suggest otherwise.

 

There are plenty of genuine gurus out there who are quietly going about their business of practicing and teaching, thereby bringing good to other peoples' lives. It's not about spiritual monopolies or control; it's about learning from those who've traveled the path before. If you have a true guru then he or she is not interested in controlling you: he or she just wants to give you independence so you can progress down your own path. A true guru is not interested in spineless unmotivated people, who are afraid of taking responsibility and doing the hard work to elevate their lives.

Edited March 22, 2010 by altiora

[Apech]

The point is that just because there are some fake gurus doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying that there is no need for gurus. The point is that in recent times, too many westerners have been seduced by false gurus, because they thought the guru would take from them the burden of responsibility for their spiritual destiny. It just highlights the need to retain our critical faculties and to ensure boundaries with the relationship. A true guru would never suggest otherwise.

 

There are plenty of genuine gurus out there who are quietly going about their business of practicing and teaching, thereby bringing good to other peoples' lives. It's not about spiritual monopolies or control; it's about learning from those who've traveled the path before. If you have a true guru then he or she is not interested in controlling you: he or she just wants to give you independence so you can progress down your own path. A true guru is not interested in spineless unmotivated people, who are afraid of taking responsibility and doing the hard work to elevate their lives.

 

I think this is the right point - although not just westerners the whole human race. It is hard, life can be hard and some people want shelter or to believe someone else can take away their own responsibility. If you have low energy or have developed low self esteem for instance then it is helpful to work with others who will support you - but the goal of this should be to put you back on your feet again not to develop further dependency. This can not happen where the 'guru' claims some kind of exclusive access to the divine or to spirituality - because although some people are further along the path compared to others anyone who is on the path at all is basically in the same ball park.

Edited March 22, 2010 by apepch7

[markern]

I think this is the right point - although not just westerners the whole human race. It is hard, life can be hard and some people want shelter or to believe someone else can take away their own responsibility. If you have low energy or have developed low self esteem for instance then it is helpful to work with others who will support you - but the goal of this should be to put you back on your feet again not to develop further dependency. This can not happen where the 'guru' claims some kind of exclusive access to the divine or to spirituality - because although some people are further along the path compared to others anyone who is on the path at all is basically in the same ball park.

 

I have many times read the claim that kundalini can only be rasied by the gurus will and grace. This of course is utter bullshit and is just one of the many ways in which the guru tradition damages peoples chances of spiritual advances. Another is that any use of a mantra without atunement by the guru is absolutely worthless. I wonder why people get better results with AYP than with most kriya nad kundalini yoga despite having thier mantras atuned. As mentioned I do not have nay problem with teachers I only have a problem with the particular and authoritarian way the indian guru tradition has clessicly been. I think it for the most part is more damaging than good compared to regular teaching and I think it spreads stupidity and disempowers people. Even when it works quite well and the guru is genuine I think it often has this effect although I see potential benefit in it under ideal circumstances.

[dwai]

Are you the one that is vetting all the guru's? What guru do we need during these times? Us poor deluded Westerners are just too ignorant to make correct choices!

 

Would you select after the likes of: Rashneesh, Sai Baba, etc.?

 

ralis

My gurus. I have one who teaches me Taiji Chuan. I have one who teaches me Siddha Yoga. I have one who has taught me specific Kriyas. And none of them have abused my trust or tried to con me. Why? Because I was very circumspect in choosing the Guru. I went with "feeling" instead of being taken in by gimmicks such as "Shaktipat" and "Transmissions" etc. If I cannot work towards my own spiritual development, I have no business embarking on that path. No one can make me "enlightened" without my being ready for it. And save one, none of my other gurus are world-famous, etc. They are perfectly happy teaching what they know to a small group of students in almost complete anonymity from the rest of the world.

 

You are conflating two issues...one is the subject of knowledge and the other of morality. Knowledge is a spiritual thing, morality is a social thing. I chided westerners such as yourself because it is obvious you don't understand what Guru means. In your mind, there is a cultural pre-programming to consider the word "Guru" as being somehow synonymous with "Charlatan". So everytime you hear the word "Guru" your hackles are raised. For someone like myself, who is born-and-raised Indian Hindu, when I hear the word Guru I interpret it as Teacher and given that I have had some fantastic, compassionate and brilliant teachers in my life, I naturally revere the word and give respect. If I come across someone who claims to be a "Guru" but it is clear that he/she doesn't demonstrate the qualities of one (such as compassion, humility, wisdom), then I don't associate with them. I am not lured by "short-cuts to Nirvana" such as Shaktipats or transmissions, etc

[Athanor]

This book seems quite shocking if you ask me.

Not that I believe everything I read in there (I didn't read the whole book), but it certainly makes me wonder... or rather confused...

 

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

 

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

[RyanO]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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