Gaia: The Integral Pod - Chapel Perspicacious

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://co-mason.gaia.com — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:44:32 GMT

This discussion has been continuing lively here at Integral Archipelago. New perspectives and understanding keeps on emerging there too.

Irmeli

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:10:57 GMT

Forgive, Irmeli, gotta respond to this.

Tomorrow perhaps when I am well rested. Don't have the energy to do all that tonight.

Big amused grin,
OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:50:21 GMT

Well, you could start by rolling on the floor laughing and weeping while dressed in blue without much further ado.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:42:15 GMT

Right now today, given my current life, that lifestyle holds some appeal.
ROTFL.
OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:31:02 GMT

OM, the Bauls are an Indian tribe, not genetically connected to each other, only through the heart of their devotional practices and god-realization. They used to dress in blue, strum primitive string instruments or beat on drums and wander around in an ecstatic trance. IOW, useless sadhus with nothing better to do than dancing, weeping, laughing and getting lost in profound states of samadhi while on earth.

A balanced being develops both: wisdom and love, jnana and bhakta. If you have both wings equally developed you're no longer a lame duck. lol.

Of course, a seasoned devotee will eventually experience all of the nuances of devotion/surrender inherent in that path.

Good for you, if you have access to the bhakta wing. You'll be so much more likely to take off and soar with that rather than a Kentucky fried chicken wing.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:18:58 GMT

I've contributed this thread to the Collective Wisdom Library of Community Threads, in the Spiritual Wisdom Room. Posted here. My reasons are given there, but basically, there is a heck of a lot of COLLECTIVE wisdom represented in this thread, so it belongs there. An education on the topic, for any interested reader. Especially with all the cool links.

Thank you Irmeli, and all,

Blessings, OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:02:42 GMT

Mascha, what's a "Baul mystic?" And what do you regard as "uneven?" Balance of what?

I too have a strong devotional streak which is totally unexplainable by anything from this lifetime. When Terry Patten spoke in Seattle, after his talk about the Second Person Face of God, some of us in conversation got up the courage to admit to one another that our personal spiritual practices involved --- arising spontaneously for each of us and unique to each of us --- 2nd-person experiences and practices. We "came out of the closet" which we had been in for fear of being regarded as Purple or Blue !!!!! It was absolutely delightful and reassuring!!! (Of course, we could ALL be Purple or Blue. But somehow I don't think so.)

However, as I recall, for none of us was the 2nd person devotion to another person. That seems to be quite different. But interesting, to ponder what the differences are.

In fact, is guru-devotion 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person Face of God stuff? I can see arguments for all three !!!!!!! Or shall we say, I can see devotee perspectives which would be 1st, devotee perspectives which would be 2nd, etc. Maybe if you have all 3 going re your guru, that's not pathological. Question mark on that. Anyone have an opinion?

Blessings, OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:33:02 GMT

Dear OM, since you asked... I also appreciated Patten's analysis very much. Thanks for posting that, Steve. It's insightful and worth re-reading again, even.

One thing you've probably never heard about the guru/disciple relationship is an observation Poonjaji made more than once. He said that in all the years that thousands of Westerners had sought him out to receive the direct transmission, he had never found a single one who had what it takes to be enlightened through the path of devotion. Only Asians, and among those only a rare few, were capable of being true bhaktas ( ecstatic lovers of the divine). But extreme bhaktas couldn't function in the world - which is why they had to be taken in by an ashram in the days of old. And anyway, everyone benefitted from a healthy dose of self-inquiry and the resulting discriminating wisdom, which makes you a jnani, rather than a pure bhakta.

In Poonjaji's Satsangs in Lucknow, there was one Indian man who was a pure bhakta - the stories about him are legendary. His sensitivity and rapport with Poonjaji was such, they became almost a single ectoplasmic organism... freaky for some Westerners to behold, that's for sure. But not for me. I have a strong devotional streak - left over from my lifetime as a Baul mystic, I suppose. LOL, we were insane, then! Much better balance now, thank you, though still a bit uneven.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:06:39 GMT

Mascha, so happy to be of service !!!! Yeah, thanking someone is a GREAT open space, isn't it. I never thought of it that way. Now you have opened ME in return !!!!

Steve, thanks so much for that new angle to view from. I really really really like and respect Terry Patten, even if, sob, he isn't IMO perfect.

Can't wait to hear what others think of his views.

Blessings, OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://11.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:11:28 GMT

Theres a great entry on Terry Pattens Integral Heart blog that seems relevant to this discussion arguing that (as with any thing) there is a middle way.

http://www.integralheart.com/blog/integralheart

Where hes talking about the polarity in Teachers /Gurus of Purity Vs Openness.

Heres an excerpt

The virtues of purity:

Without integrity we have nothing. With purity, we have "quality control"; areas of clarity and agreement are highlighted, educating people about healthy and unhealthy forms of spirituality, and protecting the psychological, financial, and sexual safety of aspirants, as well as the reputation of integral spirituality.

The virtues of openness:

The radical, transformative power of living spirituality is not suppressed; passionate creative experiments can flourish; the free choices of aspirants are respected; tolerance and generosity thrive. Openness is also attuned to the competitive spirit of the larger marketplace of ideas.

Too Much Purity:

Overvaluing purity is impractical; it empowers everyone with any complaint about any teacher, undermining the whole premise of spiritual teachers and teachings, suppressing boldness, creativity and experimentation, disrespecting the choices of spiritual aspirants, and potentially becoming spiritual McCarthyism, a mood legitimizing every complaint, regardless of its veracity, motivation, or validity. And since there's no consensus about this, one person's purity is another's unsavoriness!

Too Much Openness

Produces a chaotic, indiscriminate spiritual marketplace in which "caveat emptor" rules the day, instead of a larger "meta-sangha" that actually feels like a sanctuary for the soul. Unwary people might be exploited (especially financially and sexually) and psychologically injured due to the unhealthy power dynamics of unfettered spiritual authority. Too much openness might damage the reputation of "Integral" or "evolutionary" approaches to spirituality, or the luster of our collective "brand."

Steve

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:37:35 GMT

Thanks OM. I just realized that I'm surrounded by many Gurus according to your definition. (slaps forehead) Being fixated on the idea that I had found a living Satguru in a powerful lineage, I was blinded to that fact. But no more. Thanks again (and a few more times just to enjoy the expansive opening :).

xoxo

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:08:20 GMT

Thanks for the suggestion Tely (me rolling eyes in amused irony.) I've already submitted to my own inner guru, and my devotional practices keep me pretty busy, haha, no time for another guru. :))))

Well, to me Adya IS "special," because I FEEL him as quite different energetically from other people. That's what I said earlier. A breath of fresh air. That was not a metaphor.

I suspect if one were to move into his inner experiential world, it would be quite different from the ordinary. He's not "just people." But "guru" isn't the only alternative to "just people." IMO. There are other categories available.

Anyway, I myself define guru as someone who is emanating extremely strong powerful vibrations, not someone self-declared, or with followers, or with one area of life or line of development in a high state. A guru to me is simply by definition of the gu and ru, someone who helps move us from darkness (unawareness) to light (awareness.) To me, the energies do that. IOW my personal definition of a guru is more the transmissions they are capable of than anything else. By that definition, many many people are gurus. Not even an upa-guru (hey, thanks for that concept) because the transmission process is usually mostly unconscious for both the sender and the receiver!!!! I might not be remembering well, but wasn't an upa-guru someone who stimulated a lesson-learned, or insight, for you? In what I am describing, your vibration simply goes up. Harmonic resonance. Tuning forks. Simple physics.

By my definition, many ordinary people are gurus, and some official gurus are not, and some official gurus are great energetically but their words are mostly bullshit (IMO Ammachi is one of these.) Or to put it more politely, I just don't resonate with their words.

Actually perhaps I do have another definition of a guru, but it wouldn't have to be a teacher or someone with followers or disciples. It would have to do with whether the person's primary identity is that "eternity looking out through the eyes" that Adya described once. But of course that is hard for another person to assess. Anyone walking around in that awareness is a guru in the sense that they affect everyone around them, merely by transmission/presence, in a consciousness-expanding way. Nothing explicit needs to take place.

Just thought I would toss in these perspectives which haven't showed up yet in this thread.

Blessings, OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:49:15 GMT

Oh, pshaw, how could the divine Adya say something like that? He's a person. Just a person. He gets grumpy, he's got his hangups and peculiarities: he's just a guy. Cohen's just a guy. These people aren't special. Ya, they've got one area of life in some generally desirable state or form, but really, these people are just people. Guru? What an overestimation, the ground of major projection-stuff.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:42:51 GMT

Quite a statement, ey? I didn't hear him as being facetious. It came out spontaneously, and he and the audience seemed uncomfortable after he said it. He then followed by saying something like "you people who follow" intimating he's not one of them follower types.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://tely.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:41:37 GMT

OM, I think it's even simpler than that. Perhaps if you were to submit to Tom as your guru, then you would finally, really, truly understand. ;-)

I'm finding myself wondering how much truth there was in the joking suggestion that was made about this earlier.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://tely.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:37:48 GMT

“To have you people around me all the time? That would be my worst nightmare (uncomfortable laughter).”

I'm actually wondering if he meant that comment facetiously.

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:40:53 GMT

This is very simple, Om.

Thank you for further explaining such a simple thing so that I could finally understand it, Tom. What you meant is much clearer to me now.

Blessings, OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:37:37 GMT

Or like acid being poured on the skin.

OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://ADLIAC.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:36:24 GMT

His answer was revealing: “To have you people around me all the time? That would be my worst nightmare (uncomfortable laughter).” Sound like a little denial coming to the surface in a sideways comment? You bet.

I dunno. I think it's more complex than calling it "denial." It does seem to contradict "I'm no different from you," but again, I think the matter is complex, and depends on who "I" is.

Actually all I can do about that comment is laugh in empathy. And in understanding. Differences in vibrational level can be experienced by the embodiment like the sound of fingers scratching a chalkboard.

Blessings, OM

Re: Pathological Guru/Disciple Relationships?

http://co-mason.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:33:01 GMT

Lisaji: I find the way you guys are framing this discussion to be unkind, uncalled for, boarding into the realm of dark a pathology itself, and preoccupied with dissolving the value and any such sincerity that exists with any such teachers. There will indeed always be criticisms. Any criticism is good. But this doesn’t appear to me to belong to the realm of health criticism, because you seem to be speculating too much on the positions taken of all student/teacher relationships.

If you find my ponderings pathological, that is fine to me. All I know I have tried to describe very honestly how I perceive these issues. I have made observations and done a lot of pondering on these issues during a long period of time.

I have not claimed here or elsewhere these teachers and their teachings would have no value. I have also said in my earlier post here that some disciples seems to benefit from this type of relationship. There are however many also who actually suffer mentally, spiritually and economically.

And I repeat once again that I value many of the teachings of both TM- guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Andrew Cohen. I mainly have reservations about them as gurus.
I perceive both of them to be narcissists. I wonder why perceiving very clear narcissistic features in gurus would be pathological? If I would make a similar kind of observations and analysis of some politicians or CEOs, and the harm they have done, you most certainly wouldn't find any problem in my thinking.

Lisaji: Isn’t it always better to remain open to possibilities? Not tarnish everyone with the same brush. The future will contain many teachers, some with refined insights. Shall we tarnish them all with the same brush from the outset?

I have been here only criticizising narcissism in gurus. Bringing actual problems in the open is of essential importance for having better teachers and guides in the future.
Btw. I consider narcissism to be a severe problem also in our working places, in politics etc. I consider it to be the best remedy against abuse by narcissists that people start to recognize this pathology.

If Andrew Cohen is as enlightened as he claims himself to be, he does not take this personally. He can very impersonally appreciate the fact that he is being used for a higher good.

I have got the impression that he has truly badly humiliated people in the name of their need to get rid of their ego. Why is it pathological, if he has to taste a little bit himself also his own medicine?

Irmeli