“The authentic guru doesn’t try to be worshipped by his followers. They sometimes reject this in a very cold manner and at times assume a role lower than their students.”
Who said anything about worship? The power a guru simply desires is often only the power to induce that nothingness into students. The “cold manner” is often the manifestation of that power. The student must accept the full authority of the guru, that is release himself from skepticism. It is for this reason that guruism is not perhaps the best path to enlightenment, particularly in western cultures.
All gurus are not the same. Yes some “gurus” are power hungry and seek to induce dependence. But if the guru is necessary, then it is normal for a student to rely on their teacher to induce certain psychic states in which they can “see themselves”. There is nothing wrong with this and a welcome observation. Sacred art can do the same where a person absorbing it deeply experiences a quality of inner alignment. It is a taste of a conscious possibility that we are allowed to experience artificially from one source or another.
The presence acquired by a guru with some objective knowledge radiates a quality that is similar to what occurs naturally as charisma. it is a form of magnetism. It can make slaves of people which is why the genuine guru must push away those inclined to swoon in front of it losing their goal of inner freedom. Like anything of value, it is easy to abuse.
Of course one must come to the stage where they can accept the authority of the guru. He has access to a quality of understanding we cannot find on our own and our egotism struggles against it. But it is partially through skepticism that we can determine if the guru is worth it. Without such skepticism it is highly probable that the student will only end up in la la land. But for some this is really all that is wanted.
But in any country or culture, I believe the man of being, of objective knowledge, is always welcomed by individuals disappointed with their cultural conditioning.
As an aside, what do you consider the best path to enlightenment in the west?.
I would like to know the nature of the people that attacked your Christain relatives. Where they atheists or other religious people?
Also, I think that you are speaking in impossible terms where you speak of escaping egoism. This is an impossible task for humans. One cannot stop thinking about the “I” when they are facing anything as it is the “I” that takes on all tasks.
“But in any country or culture, I believe the man of being, of objective knowledge, is always welcomed by individuals disappointed with their cultural conditioning.”
How does one know if a guru has “objective knowledge”?
“As an aside, what do you consider the best path to enlightenment in the west?.”
I really don’t know. All I know is that I have seen and sensed many abuses in guruism. It is my thought that gurus in the tradition of the “teacher” in the East are held within some social, traditional restraint and expectation, which in the West they are released from.
On my father’ side, I am both Russian and Armenian. My grandfather escaped here from Russia during the Russian revolution. The family there had a reputation with the Russian church and many cousins stayed in Russia. I learned that some were killed leaving a church by the communists for their refusal to deny their religion and convert to Communism.
On my Armenian side, ancestors were also close to the Armenian Church. During the Armenian holocaust some of my past was slaughtered by the Turks primarily for being Christian.
Curiously, like the effort to assert that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred, the effort is the same with the Armenian Holocaust.
Say what they will, I have good reason to believe it occurred and have had family killed by this lunacy called war that seems to periodically possess mankind.
Its not a matter of escaping egoism but gradually putting it into perspective. This is the nature of inner work. I agree that our sense of I participates in all our tasks but how legitimate is it? Try a simple experiment for yourself. I presume you are sitting at a computer. Instead of saying to yourself “I am sitting at the computer”, use your own name and say “(name) is sitting at the computer” and try to experience it sitting there. What experiences your name is closer to “I”. All that is asked is the observation and experience of imagination that that corrupt egotism supplies. Authentic inner work is not programming or self deception but simply trying to be present to the experience of existence without right or wrong so that the “I” experience can become more realistic. One can do what is necessary without being emotionally attached to preconceptions of right and wrong.
It is a simple beginning but as we are, anything beyond that is impossible to remain present to. Trying to awaken to our self deception is very difficult since our programming needing to remain dominant struggles against it.
Dunamis
I believe and from my own limited experience, being in the presence of such a person of “being” allows us to experience qualities, not intensities, of emotions that transcend what we normally consider our emotional lives. It is an emotional experience that is more than animal but has a quality about it that allows the experience of our humanity both in relation to the higher and lower… Objective knowledge includes these states of being. A person than seeks the guru out to help them find themselves again and gradually grow in the direction of the source of this quality of emotion.
Agreed. Abuse is rampant. There are all sorts of charlatans and experts coming out of the woodwork. It is from skepticism that one can develop that inner taste rather than remain forever gullible. This inner taste, if it is sincere and impartial, IMO can separate the wheat from the tares in guruism. Some grow to see that the emperor has no clothes and others grow to see that the guru has no clothes. Both require sincere skepticism so as not to remain gullible.
“I believe and from my own limited experience, being in the presence of such a person of “being” allows us to experience qualities, not intensities, of emotions that transcend what we normally consider our emotional lives.”
So - if I can condense your words - if you “know” a guru has “objective knowledge” when you experience abnormal transcendent qualities of emotion in their presence, what role does skepticism play in choosing a guru?
Skepticism is absolutely crucial to the reasoned follower of a mainstream religion, since it’s a big part of how they discern their revealed truth from everything with which they disagree.
This is a very interesting question for me as well. Why is it that the Apostles could experience the quality of what Jesus brought and yet others could be indifferent and worse find it so disturbing that they would wish him dead? This must be related to not just their receptivity but having been involved with some inner work that allowed them to become skeptical as to what life on earth could offer in the context of human “being”. In this way they could become open to the experience of a contrast that could be irrelevant to those spiritually dead or just suspiciously disturbing to the point of hostility. At the same time, there were those naturally, even without any inner work, that sensed the significance.
Skepticism then must be related not only to the Guru but of the ability of life on earth to satisfy the need for human meaning. If we are so caught up with our ego determined self importance on earth, we can never be open to what the man of being brings
Self deception here is easy and often a person experiences several gurus before discovering anything that we feel can lead to answers to our questions.
Dunamis, as men we know that unless we are very fortunate, we must sample several women before finding one that provides what we need from a woman beyond the attractions of her vanity. It is often the same with gurus. The more experienced we become through our skepticism, the more we recognize and value the real thing and its benefits for our being. As with women, there is no simple formula.
“…as men we know that unless we are very fortunate, we must sample several women before finding one that provides what we need from a woman beyond the attractions of her vanity. It is often the same with gurus.”
I simply say, when you are ready for a teacher, a teacher will come.
Skepticism then must be related not only to the Guru but of the ability of life on earth to satisfy the need for human meaning. If we are so caught up with our ego determined self importance on earth, we can never be open to what the man of being brings
…is what drives many to become psychotic and delusional.
I agree but the goal of the skepticism you are referring to is to protect the preconceptions of the mainstream religion we are affiliated with. I can respect this since it serves to supply community, meaning, and consolation during difficult times.
However, what interests me is the skepticism that Simone Weil exhibited during her active times with social causes. She was skeptical of the human condition itself being the limits of man. This, I believe, is the deeper concern of all the ancient traditions before they gradually became secularized.
Adlerian
Yes I agree it is dangerous. A person can easily lose their way and end up in a far worse condition than before beginning. It is not to be taken lightly.
Pegans killed Christians. (In rome)
Christians killed Pegans. (In the witch trials)
Chistians killed Muslims.
Muslims killed Christians.
Jews and Muslims killed eachother.
Christians killed Jews in the inquisition.
I’m guessing the Jews took out some christians early on.
And of course the Commies (fairly atheistic bunch) I think killed some people.
Oh and every just kills gays and blacks too.
I’m not sure there is any moral highground to be gained here.
All I can say is that its more likely to get everyone to give up on religion than get them all to convert to any one. Seems to me thats the path of least blood. Afterall, at every time in every place there has been a contingent of atheist. It’s something basic to humanity- so I think there may be something there. Maybe if we got everyone a few generations of University we could put this whole religion thing behind us.
Yes, one thing we can be assured of is equal opportunity killing in the cause of peace.
I agree there must always have been atheist skeptics but is there value just in complaining or for noticing something of value? One thing they might notice is the inadequacy of universities. Perhaps the university does no more than to intensify differences because people surviving the experience are under the delusion that they understand something which of course the others do not so they hit them over the head with peace signs.
Perhaps the skeptic can begin to see that the appeal of the teacher with rare exceptions is prestige and the illusion of understanding rather than understanding. What happens when the skeptic begins to notice that the university only represents partial and biased intellectual understanding as an extension of the culture it resides in? Then they may experience what Simone did:
You will have many teachers and experts but if void of understanding, it only is a reflection of cyclical cultural trends.
So the true skeptic, not associated with one thing or another has the capacity to realize that taken as a whole, it is madness and Shakespeare’s observation that all the world’s a stage takes on a deeper significance.
Now the skeptic, seeing the big picture, may question with the sincerity of his whole being if what he has grown to realize is all that really is. A sincere question of such depth as a result of objective impartial experience may lead to a response of equal depth suggesting alternatives.
Alright you almost make sense, but your completely losing me. And I think you’ve missed my point as well.
What many religious people don’t understand is that they do damage just by being. By affirming truths that don’t have evidence they create a thick atmosphear of lies. For example a gay person growing up in the united states is likely to feel evil, because their culture feels they are evil, because their reiligion tells them so, just because.
The only way to avoid these senarios is to only affirm things we actually know. And not make up pretend knowledge for ourselves. One of the by-products of this is atheism. For no one has real knowledge that there is a God. (Yes no one has real knowledge that there isn’t but that’s beside the point- call it agnositism if you must).
Also an athesit who reconizes this can’t just live and let kill. He must constantly spread the maxim: “No one at any point has the right to belive something they don’t have justification for.”
But why limit this to religious groups. Isn’t the same true with politics for example? Don’t all secular institutions try to affirm lies for the sake of swaying public opinion? It is the nature of politics. Give me an example of a secular institution that doesn’t rely on lies? If we weren’t so gullible as a whole, don’t you think advertising would rely more on facts than creating image. Secular religion, politics,and the rest just reflects the scattered level of human 'being" of our collective existence.
But who is willing or able to do this? The initial post asks the question of our motive for knowledge. Do we want to affirm what we can objectively know or do we desire to affirm what suits our interests and deny what doesn’t. Are you one of the few with an uncompromising search for truth that you will deny your self interests in pursuit of it?
This is true providing of course that self justification isn’t’ considered sufficient justification for belief. Since self justification is often the primary motive for belief, it will be difficult to ask people to deny the freedom to believe in pursuit of self justification.
One can always justify killing in defense of self importance and its justification. You don’t need religion for that. I believe that it is the rare impartial skeptic that can be able to see this and sincerely begin to question if this is all that they are capable of as a part of collective existence.
Yes the problem is always the other guy. This is the level skepticism has degenerated to. If the other guy is the problem it makes you the good guy.
Christianity had a way of looking at this problem which is lacking in contemporary sophistication therefore allowing blame to be placed on the ignorant believer deprived of such sophistication.
This may have been neccessary to fool the ignorant into passivity so as to attain political power but now, through the revelations of contemporary education and an adequate supply of experts willing and able to spread
the word, there is no longer any reason to concern ourselves with our own planks since all the monies emptied into education has had it removed. Our degrees prove our ability to place the blame squarely onto where it belongs; onto those that may, through their ignorance, be an insult to our self esteem. Thank goodness for progress.
Yeah, political orginisations are bad too. Really, anytime accepting a platorm or dogma becomes important to being a member of an orginisation there is trouble.
One reason I would never join an atheist league or anything so silly.
Is there anything really wrong with people organizing for the purpose of accomplihing something uselful? I don’t think so. Common sense suggests that it is human nature to manipulate the organization for personal interests. Often it is not the platform that is at fault but people taking advantage of the platform.
Many people who call themselves skeptics underestimate how suceptible they are to this influence. What many consider impartial skepticism is really the results of the acceptance of conditioning that establishes their self importance. This is why I believe doubt is healthy and it is the conditioned conclusions resulting from the initial doubts that cause our problems.
As odd as it seems, I don’t believe we know how to be good skeptics in relation to the essence of religion. We are too caught up in self justification
