Must read: Stripping the Gurus

[Lógos Sokratikós]

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/index.html#stgtoc

Everything from Buddhism to Satya Sai Baba, and from Krishnamurti to Scientology.
*ONLINE*ONLINE*ONLINE*

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/images/stgcover.jpg

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Some gems on zen:

Richard Rumbold, an English Zen enthusiast, who spent about five months at the Shokokuji, a monastery in Kyoto, describes some savage beatings-up administered by the head monk and his assistant for trifling disciplinary offences

With his oft-pictured gentle and sagacious appearance of later years, Suzuki is revered among many in the West as a true man of Zen. Yet he wrote that “religion should, first of all, seek to preserve the existence of the state,” followed by the assertion that the Chinese were “unruly heathens” whom Japan should punish “in the name of the religion.” Zen master Harada Sogaku, highly praised in the English writings of Philip Kapleau, Maezumi Taizan, and others, was also quoted by Hakugen [a Rinzai Zen priest and scholar teaching at Hanazono University in Kyoto]. In 1939 he wrote: “[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]”

One Zen master told me that the moral precepts were very important for students to follow, but, of course, Zen masters didn’t need to bother with them since they were “free.” You can imagine what troubles later visited that community

On scientology:

One of Hubbard’s policies was that all perceived enemies are “fair game” and subject to being “tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Those who criticize the church—journalists, doctors, lawyers and even judges—often find themselves engulfed in litigation, stalked by private eyes, framed for fictional crimes, beaten up or threatened with death.


After her first article on Scientology, in 1968, [Paulette] Cooper received a flood of death threats and smear letters; her phone was bugged; lawsuits were filed against her; attempts were made to break into her apartment; and she was framed for a bomb threat

More than 20 other leaders and movements/organizations/religions/sects are denuded.

Chapter 30 is excellent.

[Toto]

A few years ago, Zen Buddhists in Japan apologized for their collaboration with the Japanese military in World War II.

[xunzian]

It's true. It can be quite tricky. I know someone who was declared an apostate because they refused to have sex with the head of their Zen Center.

[marc grbac]

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/index.html#stgtoc

Everything from Buddhism to Satya Sai Baba, and from Krishnamurti to Scientology.
*ONLINE*ONLINE*ONLINE*

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/images/stgcover.jpg

I tried reading Geoffreys Falks book but had doubts I could trust him as a reliable unbaised source.

Comes across as a snark and bitter high school drop out. There are a few articles by him here...http://www.integralworld.net/

[aupmanyav]

True gurus are few, most are charlatans. Even those who are not charlatans may not know the truth and might be spreading untruth. So, no option but to exercise your own mind.

[Gamer4Fire]

True gurus are few, most are charlatans. Even those who are not charlatans may not know the truth and might be spreading untruth. So, no option but to exercise your own mind.

This reminds me of a RVB PSA about tattoos. "You are a god damned moron. Now I'd like to prove this mathematically. Were you as smart as you are now ten years ago? No, of course not, you were a god damned moron. You're just as dumb now, its just going to take you another ten years to figure that out."

The longer I live, the dumber I feel. But at least I know I'm not as dumb as I was ten years ago (I know a little better now) or as stupid as those who espouse that they have all the answers.

[perfectbite]

It's true. It can be quite tricky. I know someone who was declared an apostate because they refused to have sex with the head of their Zen Center.

There is a saying in the West that when one door closes another opens.

The kind of Buddhist who had the authority to declare someone an apostate because he wasn't going to get sex doesn't really belong in Buddhism. In fact that kind of attitude really stinks the place up and he should be told that.

Of course, he probably is a member of the Buddha's monastic Sangha and is an abbot and is worthy of veneration whilst I am just a dog'sbody worldly awakened minded but imagine if he were homosexual and demanded gay sex from his straight monks under threat of apostacy if they didn't go along?

Straight or gay, abbot or no abbot I declare him (I am assuming its a him) apostate.

(WTF did he think such intimacy was about. Just him getting his rocks off? That's not even being a human being let alone being a Buddhist.)

[Lógos Sokratikós]

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/index.html#stgtoc

Everything from Buddhism to Satya Sai Baba, and from Krishnamurti to Scientology.
*ONLINE*ONLINE*ONLINE*


I tried reading Geoffreys Falks book but had doubts I could trust him as a reliable unbaised source.

Comes across as a snark and bitter high school drop out. There are a few articles by him here...http://www.integralworld.net/

Stripping the stripper? :D

I'm mostly interested in the quotes he uses. He probably dropped out to join a cult. ;)

[Lógos Sokratikós]

That's one reason why I don't consider myself a buddhist but an admirer of buddha ("buddha fan"). I'm not "believer enough" to call myself a christian either... Like I said on a post somewhere else:



Looks to me that the "followable" part of Christianity are (1) the golden rule (not exclusive to Christianity, this is more or less universal), (2) love God above everything, and (3) love your neighbor like yourself [including everything Jesus said about the good Samaritan, forgiving, etc].

So...


Saying you follow #(1) because of Christianity is risible.
As a disbeliever you cannot possible do #(2).
But #(3)... ohmygod #(3)! If everyone did this, what a very, very different world this would be! If this means being a Christian, please, everyone convert!


I have this idea Jesus might have been a Satya Sai Baba -type or Benny Hinn -type guru, but even if he was, it's his good ideas (not saying all his ideas were good) those that should be considered important. Same thing for Buddha. Good ideas belong to humanity.

[xunzian]

Well, that is the danger, isn't it? Power corrupts, as they say.

[abaddon]

I would hope some instances of abuse do not rule out for everyone the potential usefulness of selecting a teacher. It’d be like saying Professor Smith at Harvard was giving A’s for blowjobs, therefore universities are dens of iniquity so 1) avoid them or 2) enter at your own risk. Neither of those two options encourage the use of reason, they only encourage paranoia. A third and more reasonable option is: Enter if you want, just keep your mind turned to the ON position.

aupmanyav said “No option but to exercise your own mind”. That’s exactly what any good teacher, even a religious one, would teach. So it’s a good measure to judge a teacher: Does he/she guide the student to figure things out for himself or insist on belief based on authority?

That applies to everyone: scientists, “gurus”, dads & moms, journalists, skeptics... everyone.

Other than taking a simple lesson like this from them I don't find the stories of who did what to who interesting. You either know that no human is infallible and no human is only just wise and authoritative and never wrong, or you're still working at figuring that out.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

People shouldn't focus on finding teachers or gurus but finding truth. Truth is what has been verified to survive a comparison to reality.

[abaddon]

People shouldn't focus on finding teachers or gurus but finding truth. Truth is what has been verified to survive a comparison to reality.
Who does all this verifying? Would that include some of your teachers?

I agree that people shouldn't focus on finding teachers. But without teachers we're left to "reinvent the wheel" over and over, so people shouldn't focus on avoiding teachers either. That's all my point is, basically; people read this stuff about abuses and think "gurus are freaks so I'm going to study this or that religious path on my own", but that's not the necessary conclusion. Even in a pathless way like Buddhism the people who've walked it longer than me have some things to show me, so it'd be a mistake to reject that out of a misguided, and self-defeating, radical individualism.

People seem always to focus only on the beliefs of this weird glob called "Buddhism", and they want to know "Are the beliefs true?" So they fail to see that the actual buddhadharma is a practice and therefore more a matter of skills than of beliefs... Skills are learned, they're unlikely to "just happen" in the course of ordinary living, and self-taught persons tend to get it wrong or incomplete because their mental and physical habits limit them. Other eyes help us surpass our blind spots.

Another view of what truth is (other than that it's description) is that truth is actuality itself. That's not communicable in books or lectures, and though we do stumble through it daily we're abstracted away from it. The role of teachers in Buddhism is to point at what's right there yet unrecognized underneath the obscuring layers of beliefs, descriptions, personal preferences we have about actuality; they offer the possibility we needn't wade only in the human confabulations and can get at actuality itself. We often miss what's at the senses because we obsess about beliefs, endlessly comparing a preferred description to less preferred ones and establishing, egoistically, our personal variety of "truth" -- and it's but a mere description. (But of course we'll insist it's [more-or-less] universal because it's a truth shared with some other believers, whether religious or secular).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

That's all my point is, basically; people read this stuff about abuses and think "gurus are freaks so I'm going to study this or that religious path on my own",

The problem is faith. The goal is to exorcise the spell of faith, which makes people not only do worthwhile things, like meditate, but also stupid things, like chant or pray for forgiveness, enightenment or salvation. It even makes people do worthwhile things, like meditate for stupid reasons, like preventing rebirth or merging with the deity.

Even in a pathless way like Buddhism the people who've walked it longer than me have some things to show me, so it'd be a mistake to reject that out of a misguided, and self-defeating, radical individualism.


I do not see where the book advocates radical individualism.



People seem always to focus only on the beliefs of this weird glob called "Buddhism", and they want to know "Are the beliefs true?" So they fail to see that the actual buddhadharma is a practice and therefore more a matter of skills than of beliefs...

I disagree. It contains beliefs. Many, many, many beliefs.

The book does a fine job of breaking the spell of faith in more than 20 different belief −and practice systems− by showing the quacks that originate them. That's a fine goal.

[xunzian]

I tend to disagree with Abaddon more than agree . . . but on this issue, she's got it right.

Teachers are incredibly important. The quest for truth, for understanding, doesn't work terribly well without them.

[TruthPrevails]

It is an interesting read.
I have read most of what is written in this book with the exception of some new ones. It is essential that all these negatives (need verifications and a pinch of salt) need to be exposed to the public.
It would be better if the accusations are supported by taped messages or video evidences.

Generally, most of the spiritual practices with charismatic leaders tend to be initiated by persons with psychopathological issues. Note researches in temporal epilepsy, schizophrenia, brain damage, etc. that results in spiritual awakening in these patients.
Intense spiritual or prophetic experiences can also be a result of physical imbalances including uremia, diabetes, toxic states, brain disorders or cardiac disease.
Others who experience sudden spiritual experiences may be due to accidental or deliberate use of psychedelics drugs, mushrooms, roots, leaves, cactus, scorpion stings, etc.

Perhaps all spiritual practices should be subjected to a 'Surgeon-General's Warning' and controlled by a licencing board to mininmize abuses and lives being wrecked.

[aupmanyav]

Instead of a guru/teacher, I would suggest internet and forums (like ours). All kinds of information, views, experiences; then distill what is good and practice what is necessary. Don't have to spend money, except on band-width and electricity.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I tend to disagree with Abaddon more than agree . . . but on this issue, she's got it right.

Teachers are incredibly important. The quest for truth, for understanding, doesn't work terribly well without them.

Teachers yes, gurus, no.
There's a difference between a teacher and a guru. Teachers don't float off the ground and require faith from their followers. That's basically the idea the author gives on chapter 30, and it coincides with mine.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Instead of a guru/teacher, I would suggest internet and forums (like ours). All kinds of information, views, experiences; then distill what is good and practice what is necessary. Don't have to spend money, except on band-width and electricity.

I agree with you that the free discussion, exploring, questioning and information sharing that web fora allow, are truly enlightening. Nevertheless, certain practices require instruction, like meditation, and some information acquisition is speeded up by attending classes, etc. Never lose your ability to question, though: Dare to diverge and if necessary even disssent... without ever forgetting that you can do so, and that it can be good. Good teachers promote questioning in their students.

[premjan]

Guru basically means mentor which I suppose is a little stronger than teacher. Though in reality it is taken to be a little more than just a mentor. Historically however people didn't just stick blindly to one teacher. For instance Shankara had multiple teachers. When he had learned all he could from one, he would move on to another. The teachers themselves would declare that it was time for him to learn more. Then again there are university professors who like to hang onto their graduate students because they provide cheap research labor.

[AtheistNational]

With his oft-pictured gentle and sagacious appearance of later years, Suzuki is revered among many in the West as a true man of Zen. Yet he wrote that “religion should, first of all, seek to preserve the existence of the state,” followed by the assertion that the Chinese were “unruly heathens” whom Japan should punish “in the name of the religion.” Zen master Harada Sogaku, highly praised in the English writings of Philip Kapleau, Maezumi Taizan, and others, was also quoted by Hakugen [a Rinzai Zen priest and scholar teaching at Hanazono University in Kyoto]. In 1939 he wrote: “[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]”
This is preferable to the pacifistic effeminacy of contemporary Christianity.

[enoch007]

With his oft-pictured gentle and sagacious appearance of later years, Suzuki is revered among many in the West as a true man of Zen. Yet he wrote that “religion should, first of all, seek to preserve the existence of the state,” followed by the assertion that the Chinese were “unruly heathens” whom Japan should punish “in the name of the religion.” Zen master Harada Sogaku, highly praised in the English writings of Philip Kapleau, Maezumi Taizan, and others, was also quoted by Hakugen [a Rinzai Zen priest and scholar teaching at Hanazono University in Kyoto]. In 1939 he wrote: “[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]”
This is preferable to the pacifistic effeminacy of contemporary Christianity.

How we must miss the good old fashion christian style of enforcing (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

[aupmanyav]

Like what they did in pagan Europe?

[sylvan]

Who's perfect? First, not the ARPy saints, then not mom, now not gurus?
Who next?

[aupmanyav]

In India, your parents and grand-parents are perfect. They are the best advisers, they have only your wellfare in their heart.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I tend to disagree with Abaddon more than agree . . . but on this issue, she's got it right.

Teachers are incredibly important. The quest for truth, for understanding, doesn't work terribly well without them.

But without an independent mind, i.e. seriously questioning, what ensues is blind faith and stagnation.

Aupmanyav's example about Shankara, who had many different gurus with different ideas and coming up with his own brew, is a great example.

It is an interesting read.
I have read most of what is written in this book with the exception of some new ones. It is essential that all these negatives (need verifications and a pinch of salt) need to be exposed to the public.
It would be better if the accusations are supported by taped messages or video evidences.


Journalism rocks. Journalism and everything empirical, that is. Great ideas come from lateral thinking and even dreams, but truth comes from a very open-eyed and critical-minded state.

[aupmanyav]

Aupmanyav's example about Shankara, who had many different gurus with different ideas and coming up with his own brew, is a great example.Aupmanyav considers both, Sankara and Buddha, as his gurus, though he differs from both of them.

Leaving tomorrow for Kulu Valley for a week, perhaps won't be posting, will miss you all.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Likewise. :)

[aupmanyav]

Fritjof Capra too is my guru. Hugely impressed by his 'Tao of Physics' (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1995/1_boson.htm - one may like to read about Peter Higgs and Goldstone Boson in Wikipedia 'which correspond to the broken symmetry generators — they can be thought of as the excitations of the field in the symmetric "directions" — and are massless if the spontaneously broken symmetry is not also broken explicitly'.).

[Azygos]

Does the book carry any original research? I only found pretensions to scholarship which also is nullified by the abject sensationalism generated by his hyperbole. In sanskrit logic, you need to represent the purva paksha - the opponent against whom you debate, preferably first. In Falk's book, such balanced argumentation is absent. Making a monkey of some radical atheists seems to be the name of the game

Faith is the essence of life. Without faith, you cannot sustain the most fundamental of relationships with humans, forget the divine. Is it possible to repose faith in someone you don't really respect and love, unless it is out of ulterior motives and personal gain

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Does the book carry any original research? I only found pretensions to scholarship

Good point.

which also is nullified by the abject sensationalism generated by his hyperbole.

I don't think so. The fact that what the author's brush has painted looks very bad, doesn't invalidate it. Things can be gay or gloomy, bad, good, so-so, etcetera. A priori one cannot say much of the truth of a depiction just by its sombreness.

In sanskrit logic, you need to represent the purva paksha - the opponent against whom you debate, preferably first.

No one has the duty to defend the opponent's position. In a debate I state then you state then I state and so on. If anyone wants to present an opposite position, there are publishers around the world by the barrel for anyone to present it.

Making a monkey of some radical atheists seems to be the name of the game


I would like to see some original research in support to the statement "Falk's book is making a monkey of some radical atheists seems to be the name of the game". For congruence with your own requirements.

Faith is the essence of life. Without faith, you cannot sustain the most fundamental of relationships with humans, forget the divine. Is it possible to repose faith in someone you don't really respect and love, unless it is out of ulterior motives and personal gain

You seem to confuse faith and trust. I trust my loved ones. Trust is gained, faith is not. Although trust is one of the dictionary acceptions of the lexeme faith, using faith as meaning trust can confound the discussion. People trust due to their past experiences with the palpable, while they have faith in the unlikely unreasonable unseen.

[premjan]

It is a welcome change from abject fawning on holy men, I find.

[Azygos]

I don't think so. The fact that what the author's brush has painted looks very bad, doesn't invalidate it. Things can be gay or gloomy, bad, good, so-so, etcetera. A priori one cannot say much of the truth of a depiction just by its sombreness.

The author's attempt to construct a gloomy situation, out of half truths or fabricated material is unacceptable.


No one has the duty to defend the opponent's position. In a debate I state then you state then I state and so on. If anyone wants to present an opposite position, there are publishers around the world by the barrel for anyone to present it.

It is not a question of defending the opponent's position but citing the same to rule out bias. A one sided argument cannot under any circumstances be deemed inviolable.

I would like to see some original research in support to the statement "Falk's book is making a monkey of some radical atheists seems to be the name of the game". For congruence with your own requirements.

I cannot help in locating the atheistic obsequiousness of Falk. The onus is on you to read the works, and authentic biographies of the same gurus and philosophers whom Falk slanders in his book. Reposing blind faith on a man of Falk's stature is irrational. Did you check the citations. Did you rule out bowdlerizations?


You seem to confuse faith and trust. I trust my loved ones. Trust is gained, faith is not. Although trust is one of the dictionary acceptions of the lexeme faith, using faith as meaning trust can confound the discussion. People trust due to their past experiences with the palpable, while they have faith in the unlikely unreasonable unseen.


Faith is unconditional, while trust gained should be rationally conditioned by personality, socio-eco and educational status, personal equations with the person involved and of course one's own proclivities. But the two often coincide. So much so, that they are virtually indistinguishable. Trust can be a future basis for sustaining a relationship but the progenitor is always faith

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I don't think so. The fact that what the author's brush has painted looks very bad, doesn't invalidate it. Things can be gay or gloomy, bad, good, so-so, etcetera. A priori one cannot say much of the truth of a depiction just by its sombreness.

The author's attempt to construct a gloomy situation, out of half truths or fabricated material is unacceptable.


The burden is upon you to show it is false, not that in being gloomy it is unacceptable. If cheery then it's correct? Don't think so.


It is not a question of defending the opponent's position but citing the same to rule out bias. A one sided argument cannot under any circumstances be deemed inviolable.


Another point whose burden is upon you to defend rather than baselessly affirm. If your intention is convince, it won't be for you as easy as saying "it's biased" and happily hopping off.


I cannot help in locating the atheistic obsequiousness of Falk. The onus is on you to read the works, and authentic biographies of the same gurus and philosophers whom Falk slanders in his book.

The onus is on Falk. That is most exquisitely true. It is also true that the onus is on you to prove it is "biased", a "slander", etc. The most honest position is for one to suspend belief of what Falk says until further information can be obtained.

Reposing blind faith on a man of Falk's stature is irrational.

Who has blind faith? Are you actually reading what I am saying? How many times do I have to repeat myself over and over to you? Please go back and read.


Did you rule out bowdlerizations?


He most definitely did not bowdlerize, he was quite crude and unreserved in his criticisms. Oh please for the love of cricket, look up the word "bowdlerization" in the dictionary.



You seem to confuse faith and trust. I trust my loved ones. Trust is gained, faith is not. Although trust is one of the dictionary acceptions of the lexeme faith, using faith as meaning trust can confound the discussion. People trust due to their past experiences with the palpable, while they have faith in the unlikely unreasonable unseen.


Faith is unconditional, while trust gained should be rationally conditioned by personality, socio-eco and educational status, personal equations with the person involved and of course one's own proclivities. But the two often coincide. So much so, that they are virtually indistinguishable.

Yes they do coincide, but no, that does not make them indistinguishable. It's the difference between being rock hard stupid in one's affairs and being prudent, and actually one owes it to oneself not to hurt one's own wellbeing by not believing in the first fish story one is told.


Trust can be a future basis for sustaining a relationship but the progenitor is always faith

Actually the basis for a relationship between progenitor and issue is love not faith. I love my child or parent and in response to that disposition, treat them with kindness and respect.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I just re-read my post above and I found an error. Where I say:

Yes they do coincide, but no, that does not make them indistinguishable.

I meant to say:
"Yes, many a times they do coincide, but no, that does not make them indistinguishable."

Now it doesn't sound like a lunatic's ravings. :D

[aupmanyav]

Azygos world is ruled by faith. I am happy for him.

[Azygos]

@logos

I use bowdlerization for text torturing, not puritanical expurgations. Since I assume you have not read any authentic biography or the seminal works of some of those gurus, you are not in any position to warrant judgment on Falk's merit. Suspension of judgment in this case is a moral necessity, anything else involves moral vacuity. Radical atheists often get a kick out of slandering godmen. Therefore, their intrinsic biases cause them to appropriate even the most debased and lopsided criticisms against gurus and godmen

It is not difficult for me to dispute Falk's claims especially with regards to those whom I have extensively read and analyzed. However, I doubt that such an exercise would lead to any critical re-evaluation by dogmatic minds. Despite that, in case infidels.org assures me of uploading my critique of Falk on their weblibrary I will immediately undertake the task

[Lógos Sokratikós]

You have very stringent standards for Falk, but you have none for yourself when you use words like "slander", "debased", "lopsided", but mine is a dogmatic mind, while yours can pontify with extreme liberty.

What a joke.

[Azygos]

I assure you that I have not used any of those terms with respect to you as an individual. I thought you publicly accepted being open to evidence. In any case, I apologize for my inappropriate language. It is probably because of my own limitations, that I am not able to paraphrase myself without being so sharp

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I did not say you used the words referring to me.

Oh whatever.

[avianwing]

Jiddu Krishnamaurthy is a big jackass! His residential schools (mind you not the day-schools-which are pretty cool) are like prisons. Some teachers there are plain control-freaks!

[premjan]

Really? My sister seemed to like her stay - but that was some years ago. The main complaint seems to be not enough practical training.

[avianwing]

Actually if you stay there for a long time, you may get used to it. But if you go in from a normal school at a senior level-you feel choked. May be your sister went there when she was very young.

[premjan]

That might have been the case.

[aupmanyav]

Azygos: 'Since I assume you have not read any authentic biography or the seminal works of some of those gurus, you are not in any position to warrant judgment on Falk's merit.'

You can't fault them on biographies and seminal works, it is what they do behind the screen that is frightening, some times sex or money laundering. I hope you have seen the TV report of how many Godmen are involved in it, even some very famous names (Pilot Baba for example).

[PyramidHead]

Out of curiosity, what does the book say about Krishnamurti? I know he was raised in a kooky theosophical sect, but he seemed to distance himself from all that later in life and wound up saying much the same thing as the Buddha.

[ughaibu]

Out of curiosity, what does the book say about Krishnamurti? I know he was raised in a kooky theosophical sect, but he seemed to distance himself from all that later in life and wound up saying much the same thing as the Buddha.It's an online book, why not read the bits that interest you yourself?

[perfectbite]

A long time ago I read J. Krishnamurti and the only similarity his teaching had to the Buddha's teaching was to make your own way.

That was the K man's whole message. 'Make your own way.'

PS. He wasn't raised in a kooky theosophical sect, his growing up was directed by Annie Besant (a colleague of Madam Blavatsky et al) and his Western education (including Oxford I think) was funded by the Theosophical society. In the West in the early twentieth century CE there were great hopes that the Theosophical Society would produce a spiritual 'saviour' to enlighten mankind and they groomed him. Even D.T. Suzuki was a contributing member of the Theosophical Society.

The K man refunded the Theosophical Society every penny they had invested in him when he broke with them.

As to whether the Theosophical Society refunded those monies to its contributors I don't know.

[gurugeorge]

This is a good book, and some of the accounts are quite sobering if they're about one's "favourites".

However, I'd just enter a few caveats based on my own thought and experience in these matters:

1) Unfortunately, occasionally disciples or students are simply bitchy and spread gossip or false rumours. (Compare and contrast false rape accusations - rare, but they do happen, and can be pretty devastating and unfair when they do.) Also, sometimes people get into this stuff without realising how much commitment it entails. The "spiritual search" is serious biznes, and if you pursue it with seriousness and commitment you will be challenged to your deepest core even by the nicest, most morally inoffensive teacher. There's an old cliche that applies here: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. These possibilities have to be factored in, and would probably knock out or ameliorate (at a wild guess, based on 30 years or so of occasionally hanging around spiritual people and organizations) about 10% of these horror stories. (Either they didn't happen, or were events that were misconstrued, or are cases of "Chinese Whispers", or are simply false accusations.)

2) At the end of the day, there is such a thing as valid spiritual experience. As a fairly hard-headed rationalist and materialist by intellectual and moral temperament, I would have a hard time giving credence to spirituality in general, were it not for the fact that I've had, unbidden, a few spiritual experiences myself. While I think they can be explained rationalistically and materialistically (I've posted a few times on NARP about this myself), I also think that there's some honest-to-goodness, ecumenical truth that's revealed in spiritual experiences too.

3) Since there is such a thing as valid spiritual experience, there is also such a thing as valid spiritual teaching and teachers. They can be found. (Compare and contrast at this point, the products of capitalism: a lot of junk is produced and palmed off to the public as functioning and as valuable. At the same time, as just about every sane, intelligent person agrees after a century of experiments in socialism and communism, if it weren't for capitalism, the good stuff wouldn't be produced either. The situation is far more polarised, and gloomy, with regard to spirituality and religion, and there's less inherent reality checking in religions as social institutions than there is in capitalist organisations like corporations, but since we are human, there's always a tendency for bad apples, free riders, abuse, exploitation, etc., etc.)

4) While there is such a thing as valid spiritual experience, at a certain level, having spiritual experience doesn't necessarily make one a better person. It may do under certain circumstances and with certain types of training, persistently perfected, but it's a bit Pollyannaish (and also, it has to be said, part of the illusion of superiority fostered by religion as a social power structure) to expect everybody who's had deep spiritual experiences to be a Simon-pure goody two-shoes. (Although one ought, of course, to expect them to behave by the rules of common decency and morality.) (Again, compare and contrast: we don't expect Richard Dawkins to have never gotten angry with anyone or shouted at them just because, as we believe, he's in possession of some truths - however we would be rightly judgemental of him if he were one day "caught with his pants down" in some way.)

As a matter of interest for those wishing to keep abreast of more contemporary false or fallen guru shennanigans, check out the blog Guruphiliac (http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/), an often-entertaining, marvellously irreverent and occasionally scurrilous look at gurus from all sorts of contemporary spiritual scenes, but mostly Indian-derived.

[aupmanyav]

Never had any spiritual experience except when travelling alone in the mountains a few times. Peace, beauty of nature, gurgling of waters, wind through the trees; is that what you call spiritual? (Gurugeorge, why don't you come to NAR&P, we miss you and some others)

[gurugeorge]

Never had any spiritual experience except when travelling alone in the mountains a few times. Peace, beauty of nature, gurgling of waters, wind through the trees; is that what you call spiritual? (Gurugeorge, why don't you come to NAR&P, we miss you and some others)

Hey aupmanyav! I do enjoy it here but I don't have as much time as I would like for these improving discourses :)

Yes, all that is definitely spiritual - but I think there are, further, two things that are kind of much more striking if and when they happen.

First, the experience of (what I call) the Universe waking up in one (concomitant with the loss of the ordinary sense of self); secondly, the permanent knowledge that this "awakening experience" doesn't make any difference to the Universe one way or another. There's usually a distinction between these two, with the first called something like "glimpse", "awakening", etc., and the latter called "liberation", "enlightenment", etc.

The former (which I've experienced) isn't uncommon, and it seems to be considered, in most systems, that you've got your "foot in the door" if you've had that experience; the latter (which I wouldn't dare to associate myself with) is not so common, and indeed the former seems to be a kind of obstacle to the latter.

Which is as much as to say, as blindingly amazing and at right angles to all ordinary everyday experience the "awakening" of the Universe in one is, we still seem to have to go through the mill to "attain" (though such a word is foolish at this level) full and final liberation from the hankering for "enlightenment experiences" altogether. But I think you have to be careful - it's not like you can pretend you're already at the second stage just by dint of intellectual understanding (after all, it's not that difficult to understand intellectually), and I don't think you can really have even an inkling of the enormity of the latter unless you've had some experience in the former. My feeling is that there are a lot of people running around who think they've "got" the latter, where really they've just gotten an epiphany in which they actually understand philosophical Idealism as a (mere) philosophy, and are simply looking at their experience through the filter "all is Consciousness", or something of that kind.

Which (rather neatly) brings us back to the topic of the thread. I think the most common problem with "false gurus" is that they may indeed have had profound "glimpse" experiences of the former kind (and I can't emphasise enough how "big" that experience is in life, it really is like a bolt from the blue, something one cannot conceive of, way beyond anything to do with LSD experiences, for example), and they may even be lucky enough to be in samadhi for a long time, may (unfortunately! :) ) attract students by their radiating evident bliss and ease, etc., etc. But when the experience passes (as all experiences must inevitably do), the jig is up - yet they have to either carry on a charade sustaining the (probably by now) hysterical expectations of their students, or admit that what they had wasn't "it" after all.

All of which points to the reason why many traditions recommend a good few years of further practice and study, even after you've attained "awakening", before you can be confident or stable in your attainment - far less have the temerity to teach. That's not to say that there's any real difference in essence between these two grades or levels of attainment, it's just a difference in orientation or maturity of outlook; also, the fact that if you're called to teach, you better make sure you have decent life experience yourself, and also knowledge of the kinds of problems students are likely to encounter in their own practice (i.e. if you're going to teach, you have to make it your business to be thoroughly familiar with the practices of your school, inside out and back to front, as it were.)

[aupmanyav]

Nice post, Gurugeorge. Whenever you have time.

[PyramidHead]

A long time ago I read J. Krishnamurti and the only similarity his teaching had to the Buddha's teaching was to make your own way.

That was the K man's whole message. 'Make your own way.'

PS. He wasn't raised in a kooky theosophical sect, his growing up was directed by Annie Besant (a colleague of Madam Blavatsky et al) and his Western education (including Oxford I think) was funded by the Theosophical society. In the West in the early twentieth century CE there were great hopes that the Theosophical Society would produce a spiritual 'saviour' to enlighten mankind and they groomed him. Even D.T. Suzuki was a contributing member of the Theosophical Society.

The K man refunded the Theosophical Society every penny they had invested in him when he broke with them.

As to whether the Theosophical Society refunded those monies to its contributors I don't know.


I was into Krishnamurti for many years. I've now read the chapter on him, and find it a little unfair, dwelling on the apparent hypocrisy of recommending celibacy while not practicing it; I own dozens of books by K, none of which say anything about sex other than it can become an obsession and another problem to deal with, so best not to let it take over. The other charges laid at his feet, namely being hurtful and unscrupulous with his words, are probably true, but owe more to the fact that his message was rather radical. Nobody could live how he described, it's true. But it was a healthy journey for me just contemplating the stuff he would say, but not trying to mold myself into a pattern based on it (which was his underlying theme anyway). So yeah, he had his failings and probably some delusions of grandeur, but still an impressive man and a valuable thinker, in my opinion.

[aupmanyav]

That his message was a little radical is no reason for being hurtful and unscrupulous with words. Even Buddha's message was radical. And delusions of granduer, perhaps that is why he never impressed me with his stylish long hair and brooding face, impressed ladies. Indian realized persons (not the commercial gurus) always have a happy face.

[perfectbite]

Still alive and kicking I see.

Long time no hear from gurugeorge.

Hello.

[perfectbite]

That his message was a little radical is no reason for being hurtful and unscrupulous with words. Even Buddha's message was radical. And delusions of granduer, perhaps that is why he never impressed me with his stylish long hair and brooding face, impressed ladies. Indian realized persons (not the commercial gurus) always have a happy face.

From the Gupta empire time there is a bust of Avalokitesvara who may not be smiling but who is obviously quietly happy.

In the West, depictions of the Buddha are often shown with a slight smile at the corners of his lips but this could be changing as other faces reflect the seriousness of the task of being Enlightened and becoming Enlightened.

The liberation the Buddha refers to is the liberation from woe before and after the attainment of Enlightenment.

When looking at Buddhist statuary some faces are rendered as 'blobby' for the mass produced porcelain figures where they haven't taken care of their casting forms.

If the path to Enlightenment isn't filled with wonder and light and is joyous that it is filled with wonder and light then it isn't the path to Enlightenment.

No-one wants or needs a weary willie or sad sack Buddha but some Western Buddhist practitioners have transmogrified Buddhism into being a deathly serious business and in doing so have taken to look at life itself as being onerous with the escape from the Great Mandala through the exercise of a grinding, lacklustre physical discipline that is substituted for spiritual discipline being the goal of their Buddhist practice.

A valid Buddhist prayer/wish is 'May all beings be happy' (but not the one who is wishing happiness on others????????) Give me a break.

[aupmanyav]

Yes, we disussed it once - 'Sarve Santu Sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah..'. :)

[Rusting Car Bumper]

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/index.html#stgtoc

Everything from Buddhism to Satya Sai Baba, and from Krishnamurti to Scientology.
*ONLINE*ONLINE*ONLINE*



The only thing I have a problem with is the suggestion of mixing individuals with groups such as "Buddhism to Satya Sai Baba."

Buddhism or Scientology for that matter is not a Guru. A guru is an individual.

It seems fallacious to criticize an abstract category or mass philosophy by the same means one would criticize the actions of an individual.

If a religion, a philosophy or what have you is "wrong" or cant live up to its claims then one can show that without needing to criticize individuals at all.

Does the book have a chapter on Madalyn Murray O'Hair? It would seem appropriate.

[aupmanyav]

One more Guru has police investigating the death of four children in a month in his ashram by forcing their heads in water filled buckets (ages 4-7), Asa Ram Bapu. His son declared that he is God sometime ago.