This morning, I read the latest post up at Ann Seeker’s blog, where she’s been summarizing her experience of reading David Appelbaum’s book The Stop. I bookmarked the article for later reading because I thought it was interesting. In it, she says:
The idea that there is an action of energy already in motion that our conscious mind responds too, which we experience as making a decision ties in with some of the early stages of Buddhist Vipassana meditation, as outlined in Practical Insight Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw:
Which to me is basically saying that though we think the body is moving because we are thinking about moving and moving the body, there is a subtle mistake here in that first the intention to move arises on its own, in response to conditions, and then our body moves accordingly. I’m slowly reading through this book, though not very quickly as I’m trying to assimilate each stage before moving on to the next one. As my meditation practice lately has been slacking, I can’t say I’ve made much progress. Plus, the Burmese Vipassana seems to be at odds with my Zazen, so I’m still working out how to proceed there. But the book does come highly recommended, so if anyone is interested in starting a meditation practice, I’d offer it as a clear and easy-to-read guide to Vipassana.
Anyway, the really interesting thing happened when Max posted a comment today linking back to an old post at Tim Boucher’s blog, where Tim discusses Aldous Huxley’s take on the brain as behaving as a sort of reductive-valve:
So if anything, following this breadcrumb trail of information that seems to have been thrown my way today, it seems that the experience of schizophrenia might be fairly likened to being enlightened too early, to having the connection to Mind-At-Large opened before we’re ready to handle the loads on information that pours at/through us. I can see this creating a sort of feedback loop, where the mental program of consciousness, our sense of self determination that somehow seems to float above what’s actually going on inside our brain (as shown by the Mahasi Sayadaw quote above) is pushed away from the center of existence where it usually rests, resulting both in the positive and negative symptoms mentioned above.
I’m not exactly sure what I’m getting at here, but it all seems to point to something. I do know one thing though: it’s not really about schizophrenia.
One other thing this brings to mind is this short little movie (which won a shit-ton of awards). Watch it, it’s heartwrenchingly beautiful:
I’d originally found this film over at Imagining the 10th Dimension, where Rob had posted it a few weeks after he made his own post about schizophrenia and the effect of time on the brain (except remember, this isn’t actually about schizophrenia). From Rob’s post, where he is quoting a New Scientist magazine article:
I tend to agree with Rob on this, that just because our free will might not be quick and immediate as we think it is, this doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Its just that our consciousness is not exactly in touch with the core process at work in our being. Becoming aware of these process, it seems would both destroy the feeling that we were somehow separate from them, but also give our free will a better, more holistic expression.
Our brain is a perfectly reflecting gem, and its always perfectly reflecting. We just have to clear out the conscious static (caused by our mind’s very real and correct desire to survive) so as to get in touch with that place inside our self where the truth of what is, is focused. Zap, moon in a dew drop indeed.
Thanks Ann. Your comment on the head brain/body is funny, because I actually have been doing a lot of body work lately. I’ve been taking a yoga class, a somatic meditation class, and a parkour class. I was recently told by my zen group that I needed to get more in touch with the body as well, which is what started this whole thing.
On the other hand, I do enjoy being in the head brain, and of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as its kept in balance. I’ve been having a lot of trouble writing lately, and also with my zen meditation. And I’m finally coming to realize that it might be exactly what you and the zen people have pointed out, I had been too much out of the body. Having brought my practice back into my body, I’m hoping I’ll now able to get back into the head brain properly, without it spinning out of control and away from the body. I just have to make sure I keep both areas of practice moving at similar speeds.
At least, that’s how I’m experiencing it. Does that make any sense at all? :)
Also, since I imagine you’re a but more familiar with Gurdjieffian exercises, do you know if there’s anything to be done for the third center (heart/emotional)? I am worried I may be neglecting that one, and would like to remedy the situation before it becomes a problem. The last thing I want to do though is find another class to take!
Though maybe a Sufi group would be helpful… I think they’re supposed to be a more heart oriented group.
A lot of this sounds very T’ai Chi. Many movements, one movement, no movement; they all start to blur into each other.
Like, there’s this exercize where you assume a relaxed posture, knees slightly bent, feet shoulder width apart, and the instructor takes your shoulder and leans on you and pushes you over sideways. And then you do it with your eyes shut, and the whole class laughs because then the instructor /can’t/ push you over; your unconscious balance takes over and transfers the weight from foot to foot and keeps you upright. And then you laugh and you get pushed over again. The skill is to be able to do it with your eyes open. Apparently the Master of the school used to walk round the class practicing the Form, just pushing people over when he saw they weren’t doing it right :)
Yeah, I love those old Tai Chi master videos. Just a little nudge and WHOOMP, the students go flying.
I don’t know if you did it on purpose, but I think that Tai Chi (or more properly, Chi Kung) might be the answer to the question I asked Ann above (regarding a workout for the emotional center). My chi kung teachers’ key instructions have always been no thoughts and to smile from the heart. I always finish practice feeling lighter and happier, so its a good bet that the Chi practice is a combination emotion/body exercise.
However, I’m not sure how this ties in with the article (it seems your posting this more in response to the article, rather than my reply to Ann). I’d like to hear what exactly you meant by that.
Though I can also take a stab at making connections myself. :)
Perhaps chi is a bridge between the conscious mind and the unconscious processes in the body (I’ve actually heard yoga teachers say that in regards to prana, but its never made sense before now…)
That is, the subtle breath body can be viewed by the mind as a sort of rippling surface, underneath which lies the causal body, the actual stuff-thats-going-on, which we need to entrain our conscious awareness to (through meditation and the reduction of “static”, as well as speeding up the “frame rate” of our awareness).
This makes sense that as well, because noticing the flow of Chi in the body can unblock our energy pathways and release tension. Releasing that kind of tension can clear psychological and spiritual blockages as well.
I have to admit I didn’t understand much of your post. Ya got me! But the bits that made sense made me think of T’ai Chi.
I was taught that Chi Kung is the ‘standing still’ activity whereas the T’ai Chi is the slow-motion in a prescribed Form (hold the ball, single whip, catch sparrow by the tail etc.) We used Chi Gung as a warmup; apparently it means ‘energy gathering’ or something like that. Hands above head, gather energy; clasp hands over Dan Tien, squirrel it away for later. Then Form.
I mean, the way you do the Form to start with is all consciousness. But after a bit it starts to flow by itself. So the intention and the action start to get muddled up. I’m not sure where it goes from here but it’s an odd feeling.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. The Chi Kung charges the energy, making it more noticeable to the consciousness (something I can certainly back up with my own experience) and then the Tai Chi forms are ways for the consciousness to enter into a learn about the energy. As you say, the action and intent start to mix, as with all martial arts, you begin to move without moving, wu wei…
Yes, the emotional center is key. It is the gateway to the higher emotional and higher intellectual centers. But there is no one exercise by which to approach it. It is a life’s Work. Although there are now many books on the Gurdjieff Work, it is actually an oral tradition that is passed from individual teacher to individual student. The teacher-student relationship is the foundation of the Work.
Ann, thanks for that bit of information. The student-teacher relationship is something I am considering deeply at the moment, the why’s and how’s of it. I have always felt that the Gurdjieff books I’ve read seem to be pointing to something, rather than being outright explanations in themselves. It’s good to have a reason (of sorts) for this. :)
Maybe you have the issue of The Gurdjieff Journal – which used to be called Telos which has the beginning of a 3 part series on the teacher-student relationship. It looks like you have the cover picture with Gurdjieff and Fritz Peters on your recent post. If you don’t have it you can get it here; it’s issue #14, Vol 4 No 2. Here’s the description of the article:
The form and substance of the teacher-student relationship is archetypal. Truly formed, the relationship opens the student to new life and possibilities, but in doing so, it first evokes a collision of worlds—a collision of the objective with the subjective, the time-free with the time-bound, the real with the unreal. Friction, confusion, clash and rebellion must result.
The stronger the student, the stronger this struggle. This is seen most vividly in the relationship G.I. Gurdjieff had with Ouspensky and Orage. Both students were blessed with a great intellect and thirst for knowledge. Powerful in ordinary life, confident of their abilities, neither was easy to impress or to lead. They demanded a great deal of Gurdjieff. And he of them.
Actually, I recently bought William Patrick Patterson’s “The Struggle of the Magicians”, about the complicated relationship between Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Looking forward to reading it, though I have a few other books on my plate to get through first.
Been thinking about Tai Chi for the same reasons you seem to be into it – I have spent too much time in my analytical head, extremely disassociated from the body, which I used to think of as less-than and separate. Been doing some yoga which helps, but have to be careful where I go – these “CorePower” places are like asian-flavored aerobics classes and do very little for me … like the places that focus more on being present in the body and the breath, mindfulness, awareness, etc … any general advice on finding a quality tai chi class? I suppose I should just follow my intuition and go with the flow and see where it takes me, but I’m at work on coffee and in my head being all thinky about it. heh
Yeah, I know what you mean about Asian flavored aerobics… And I certainly know what you mean about “at work on coffee and in my head being all thinky”!
For Tai Chi or Chi Kung, I do think it’s hard to find a good teacher. I’ve worked with a couple of teachers trained by Sifu Wong Kiew Kit, at least in regards to Chi Kung (never taken any Tai Chi classes), and they’ve both been really good.
One of the best teachers I’ve learned from though is Sifu Pragata Blaise, who’s giving a retreat in June at the Zen Monastery I go to up near Woodstock NY. If you were looking to take a vacation, it might be fun, but you’re probably better off checking with the guy in St Paul first. Even if he’s not offering classes, he might still know of someone you can contact.
As for yoga, I’d recommend Kripalu yoga. Their main focus is on being in the body, breath-body-mind connection stuff, and less on the aerobic aspect, or even the exact postures. They seem to be a little more loose about specifics, but I always leave the class feeling really light, grounded, and relaxed.
No worries Pavel. I’d say I find Zazen to be an exercise where the focus is be as completely present with the present moment as possible. The instructions we’re repeatedly given is “focus on the breath, if you have ant thoughts, see the thought, acknowledge it, let it go, and come back to the breath”. The same is true, though I don’t have any personal experience with it, if you are given a koan or shikantaza (“just sitting”) as a practice.
On the other hand, vipassana, as we both have learned it from Daniel Ingram’s book (and Kenneth Folk’s site as well, if you’re on that one) is primarily a noting practice. As a thought arises, you note it, label it, and go back to the breath.
Although they seem very similar at first glance, I find them to be very different in regards to the subjective experience of practice. Granted, I do not have an official teacher in either tradition at this point so this is a personal opinion without an official sanction or advice behind it, but I find in zazen that the thoughts and other things are almost superfluous, they are acknowledged and let go of, there is no part of the practice where you have any interaction with them. Where as in Vipassana, there is more an entering into the thought and dissecting it. Either you note it as “thinking” or “grasping” or “desiring” or even just noting one of the three characteristics, but in all cases of Vipassana, you are attaching a label to the thought to separate it from your self. In Zen, as far as I can tell, there is no labeling, just a simple acknowledgment of “there is thought here”.
I find the result if Vipassana to be a steadying of the mind, since each labeled thought is removed from the sense of self, while zazen has much more movement to it, or rather a growing awareness of our minds own movement through time.
But like I said, I don’t have any personal instruction from a teacher in either tradition to back my views, its just a personal opinion based on my present experience of having tried both practices out myself. I seem to fall more toward the Zazen side, but I think that’s just because I’ve been doing it longer. I figure, if it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it, you know?
Pavel, do you (or anyone else out there) have similar (or entirely different) takes on the matter?
Noting is really weird, isnt it? Well, I do a fair mix of noting and staying with bare sensations and for me the two go really well together, noting is really useful in catching a lot of bodily/mental/emotional activity that I have never noticed before (a lot of the time it helps me realize what it is that I am experiencing), also noting is amazing when working with thought and emotions (realizing which is which, how they interact, different flavours).
Dropping the noting and just staying with experience teaches me a lot about the flavour and depth of what I am experiencing, I get much deeper into seeing what stuff is made of.
In a way, both approaches unearth more stuff that I would otherwise miss.
The take on this that Daniel Ingram has (or as far as I understand) is to do insight with the intention of not missing a single thing that arises (being as quick as possible), for as long as noting is quick enough for this, use that, when awareness speeds up drop noting, when awareness quiets down (dark Night) go back to noting. (ie. use whatever works in staying with sensate reality moment-to-moment not losing a beat).
Noting is a lot less natural than other techniques I have tried but it seems to do a lot of things better once I have grown accustomed to it.
What do you think? (BTW, in zazen, have you ever tried not letting go of the object before returning to breath? – ie. allowing awareness to stay with whatever is there, only returning to the breath if the mind wanders without your knowledge of it?)
The teacher-student relationship is the foundation of the Work.
Ann
Could that be just a thing to keep the francise alive? I hear that a lot with different teachings. Seems like a thing Teachers create for job security.
That’s interesting. I like your description of Daniel Ingram’s technique, but for me that kind of bearing down seems to grind things to a halt. I seem to spend more time worrying about finding a sensation to label, or that I’m somehow missing sensations, or something like that. It gets me lost in my head too quickly.
On the other hand, since I started with the Zazen, I can get into bare sensation relatively easily, and then when something does pop into my head, if I notice that it is beginning to distract me from the breath, I can usually pull my attention away from it by labeling it as pretty much anything. As soon as it becomes a “thing” its much more easy for my mind to recognize it as a distraction, pull out of it, and go back to the breath. I think its really just a question of how practice develops differently person to person, which has to do both which what seems to suit their personal mentality, and also, what influences acted on their practice as it was developing.
And as far staying with the distraction, as far as I’ve been taught, this is a good thing to do only when the same distraction comes up repeatedly. If it won’t go away, then you have to listen to it. But this seems to be another case of personal inclination/preference/training-history. As it is taught to you, so shall it proceed for you, at least at first…
Plus there’s the old fairy tale idea that knowing something’s name gives you power over it. Seems like maybe someone was onto to something subconscious with those…
I listened to a podcast recently about training the brain (link below) and there was an interesting part about what naming/labeling our emotions/experiences does to different parts of the brain:
Seems more and more like this whole thing is about humanity consciously learning how to overcome and evolve beyond old, unhelpful instincts and habits…
Have you ever heard anyone say the opposite, that it is not useful at all to have a teacher? The closest I can think of off hand is Crowley with his “Do what thou wilt” and 1) Crowley wasn’t the best example, and 2) even he had a pretty strict hierarchy in his organization.
There’s a reason for this, and its not just “job security”. Sure, it can be mis-used that way. Here’s a quote from a recent discussion over at “Open Enlightenment” that I feel is a good explanation of this:
Have you ever worked with a teacher before? Even though it can be abused, it’s certainly still a valid form of spiritual practice. I think we only hear about the bad ones, cause the good ones don’t do anything to make the local news. For the same reason that the “news” is always bad news, almost never good news.
Speaking of “good news”, there’s that quote from Jesus: “first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye.” The teacher-student relationship is an example of the second part of that quote. Teachers are people who can see things a little more clearly than we can, simply because they’ve been at it longer, or have a gift for it. They can see the things that we willfully, unconsciously blind ourselves toward (the “mote” in our own “eye) and they can help bring our attention to it.
We all have moments of seeing clearly, and we can all do this for each other to a certain extent, but there are some people who, though no better or worse than us as people, can see clearly more often than we do, and they (ideally) have learned how to skillfully help people come to see their own problems (upaya: “skillful means”).
Another point is that other people ALWAYS see our problems more clearly than we do, just as we can clearly see others problems more readily than our own. We’re used to our own problems… It’s really just a case of skillfully informed constructive criticism.
Oh, and I doubt teachers really need job security. There’s always people out there looking for someone to tell them the answer to their problems. :)
I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have an inside track to God that can only be accessed through them. That’s what the whole institution of priesthood is about.
Saying that certain spiritual truths can only be learned face to face through us, is troubling. Its also dubious, because all people are basically alike and have equal access to the Spirit.
So you can be a teacher and have experience to offer, and that’s fine. But making a claim to special initiated knowledge and some type of monopoly on it, thats a red flag.
I think all corrupt Gurus are teachers and people don’t want to learn from them. So they spring up again and aga
They teach the same lesson over and over again.
Like “have some self respect” “trust your instincts” “don’t give your power away” “Don’t entrust your spiritual fate into another person’s hands”
Well, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said here, Ted (though I’m a little unclear what you mean in that last little bit). But we seem to be on the same page about this for once! :)
I would like to make one last point, not as an argument against what you’ve said, but just as something that came to mind after reading your comments. The abbot at the Zen temple I attend recently gave a talk addressing the problem of hierarchy in established religious groups (not that the monks and nuns ever claim to be the sole source of anything, in fact, they claim that the best teacher’s give you absolutely nothing, when it comes to spiritual training).
Anyway, he made the point that if a hierarchy is not set up, that there will pretty much be one anyway, that a social pecking order is something human beings naturally and subconsciously create, and that it can be in the best interests of ANY group to set up such an order consciously and in the open, rather than letting things be vague and undefined.
Of course, this has the potential to devolve into something like the Catholic church, where position and rank confer “spirituality” rather than the other way around. But I think it’s a good point none-the-less. Without an explicit order, there’s bound to be some kind of implicit order, which, because its not consciously recognized, can often lead to conflict and strife within the group.
Just food for thought. I don’t think there’s any easy answer to these kinds of questions.
Well, there are ways to legislate the type of heirarchy a religious organization wants to have. Take for example a Unitarian Universalist Church. So they want a Pastor to teach them. They form a committee to look for one, then the top candidates visit and the members vote. If people become unhappy with the Pastor at some point they can fire her. So obviously the Pastor is in a leadership position, but there is a system in place to prevent abuse and also communal decision making rather than totally autocratic and top down.
Believe it or not this is the way most protestant churches work even more conservative ones, like Baptists.
With Buddhism and with these Hindu Gurus, its not like this, its totaly autocratic and top down. There is no group consensus, no vote. Everyone seems to be there at the pleasure of the Zen Master or whomever. He his a one on one relationship with all the people that others aren’t involved in. There is no consensus.
I am not saying no one can have a gift of teaching or have more expertise or expertise than others. I am not saying no one can have some type of authority.
Its just that these Eastern religious Institutions seem set up to be cult like and abusive by design,with no safegueards besides “Just trust me I’m more enlightened than you.”
Yes, I’ll agree with that as well, though there are benefits to having a “one on one relationship with all the people that others aren’t involved in” with a teacher. But the potential for abuse there is a great one, and I think its a temptation to which Westerners (and also Easterners in the west, and even Easterners in the east) have certainly proved to be uniquely susceptible to.
But this is also what Buddha did, and what Christ did, and what Socrates did, and it seemed to work pretty well in those cases. The key, I think, is honesty on the part of the teacher. The more often you find a teacher willing to “step off the pedestal” when it’s obvious that they should, the better that person is as a teacher, I’d say.
Well, I think the problem is this expectation that God-like beings exist. Whatever Buddha or Jesus did, who knows? I think having that expectation sets people up for abuse. This seems to be the basis of the Guru relationship. Christians and Jews, for example don’t have this expectation. A Rabbi or a Pastor is seen as just a regular person with a calling to the ministry and gift of teaching or whatever, they aren’t seen as being God in the flesh.
A Guru is supposed to be God in the flesh to the point that you are supposed to worship them and do whatever they say, even to the point of abuse in order to “desroy your ego attachement. They are “realized” and know what you need and are given free reign.
That just seems really fucked up to me. I think anyone making a claim of being God Like has a really massive burden of proof to fill. I don’t see anyone filling it. As far as I am concerned its not a few bad apples, its all of them. What would a Godlike being do? Get lots of pussy? Gather lots of money? Abuse drugs and alcahol? Why get enlightened first if this is the goal? Can’t these activities be purued by non-god beings?
Followers do all sorts of gymnastics to apologize for this, like calling it “crazy wisdom” saying its part of them reaching people, etc.
It seems to be an institution created by and uniquely suited to psychopaths.
Maybe its also uniquely suited to masochists that can’t stand having power and responsibility to make decisions and seek truth for themselves.
OK. I know what it is. Its NARCISSISM. Its the epitome of NARCISSISM to want to be GOD. So the Seeker that joins one of these cults is already a narcissist. They have this narcissistic idea that they can become god, they percieve that the guru has achieved this already. So they become a reverse narcissist.
That’s what these cults are set up to do. You project your Narcissism onto the Guru and do what they say, worship them, in the hopes that they will eventually confer this quality onto you some how or show you the way,so that ou can become a God.
That’s why people take so much abuse and give away their power, allow themselves to be sodomized, robbed and beaten. They see it has having a massive pay off of fulfilling their delusional fantasy of becoming God.
perhaps the ‘delusional fantasy’ is that we are not all god, already. (although the notion that one is “more god” than any other being is certainly a potent delusion, as well.)
So I am really omnipotent, omniscient etc. and so is everyone else? But I am just delusional? Like really i can levitate heal people and stuff, but i am having a powerful hallucination that indicates I can’t?
I feel this discussion is devolving into too wide a generalization to be of any help. Ted, what you say is sometimes 100% correct, sometimes it is 100% not. It is impossible to come down on either side of this discussion without missing important truth that can only be seen from the other, and its creating a false dichotomy where there is none.
How can we NOT be God? To say that we aren’t is to place a limit on the absolute. Yet, do we have to be something special in order to be God? Isn’t that also to limit the absolute? Yet none of this means anything until we’ve actually experienced it and learned how to integrate that experience into life, until we can find personal meaning in it. Otherwise its all just tongues wagging, myself 100% included.
Its not tongues wagging. Its an imprtant question. Its the opposite of tongues wagging. Tonges wagging is going on an on about something you purport to know about but really don’t.
I am aproaching it from the opposite angle. What do we know? How do we know these gurus know something we don’t?
If I am God and so is everyone else and so is the grass growing outside and my silverware, rocks, air etc. Than what is the point? What does the word “god” signify?
He has some similair stuff to that “gurubusting” guy you linked to on his website, but he seems like he still holds out hope for the existence of “true gurus” and implies that with real ones you should totally devote yourself to them and worship them as you would God.
That’s the thing Ted, there is no way to know. Talking about it muddies the waters, whereas the only way you can actually find out is a combination on luck, instinct, careful observation, and actual interaction with the teacher.
As that link point out, there are possibly cases where the guru/teacher’s status as “divine” can be useful. But the guru must at all times remember that this is meant to be a skillful technique used FOR THE SAKE OF THE STUDENT, not for the gratitude of the teacher’s desires.
Can it happen? Sure, I’d say so. Does it happen? Probably, though I don’t have direct experience of it. But how can we know a teacher can be trusted? We can’t, there’s no guarantee for this. And even the best teachers will stumble or make mistakes, and even the worst teachers can potentially have something to offer.
How do we know which teacher is right for us? I have NO idea. In fact, its something I’m really trying to understand myself! :)
Another thing that link reminds me of is that I finally went and saw Avatar!
First off, I love it, and I can see how my original thoughts on it were kind of wrong. But there’s still a really interesting juxtaposition of video game culture and oneness-with-nature culture that I find really interesting. I haven’t had a chance to sit down and write my thoughts out, but I hope to soon. :)
I couldn’t begin to explain in a rationally compelling way what I meant by that … but that’s not to say I don’t stand by it.
I’m not much for hierarchy or following teachers either, although I don’t think this is the superior way to go, or not recognize that this path has limitations as well as potentialities. Nor do I believe that teachers are inevitably corrupt, although certainly many are. “By their fruits you will know them” was the advice Jesus gave on the matter, for whatever that’s worth. :)
Hey, how about “plant teachers”? And fungal teachers, of course …
Though I’m not all that familiar with the plant teachers myself, I think they more help us to tap into the internal teacher we all carry around with us.
Personally I hearken back to Alan Watts on this one: “when you get the message, hang up the phone…”
Which is not to say they can’t do wonderful things for some people (clearly!)
If some guy knows how to make pottery or fix cars, its pretty obvious weather or not he has skill. So I don’t have a problem paying him to teach me or even letting him tell me what to do.
Spirituality is such a different thing. Its so much more open to con-artistry. I think its safer to assume they are all con-artists. I mean as far as buying a book or a cd that’s fine, but pledging an oath of loyalty, worshipping them, putting your life in their hands?
I mean come on. The rational explanation is that the office of Guru is designed to manipulate people. Its a ploy to brainswash and prey on people. And just like they say you can’t con an honest man, these groupy followers are partially complicit as well. That’s how it perpetuates itself even through countless reports of abuse.
People REALLY want to believe. But say that its a mystery and nobody knows what a good spiritual teacher is is a cop out. Its not that hard to figure out. You should judge them like any teacher. Does a shop teacher need you to take an oath of loyalty to them to teach them shop? Is it a secret how to fix stuff that is only available to an initiated “inner circle”? In order to learn shop is it neccessary to think of the shop teacher as having reached a state of God-like perfection?
In that context all the Guru stuff looks ridiculous and it should.
I think its safer to assume they are all con-artists.
Yes, its certainly safer…
The rational explanation is that the office of Guru is designed to manipulate people.
You won’t get very far in spirituality looking for a rational explanation.
Anyway, obviously you don’t take to the guru-disciple path. No worries, its one way, and it works for some people and not for others.
Have you had any luck finding a “shop teacher”? Actually, Danial Ingram seems like more a “shop teacher” type spiritual guide than a “guru” type. Have you read his book? I remember discussing the Hurricane Ranch dialogues with you before, good stuff…
So my question then is “what is enlightenment?” is it a real thing that is the highest aspiration of humanity that everyone should strive for? Or is it simply Nihilism and the conviction that reality is unreal?
It also could be that meditation and insight practice have some real benefits at first, which implies more extreme practice would have more extreme benefits. But this may be a dubious proposition. Maybe its like the benefits of running three miles a day compared to running ultramarathons. After three miles a day the risks actually begin to outweigh the benefits, while benefits don’t increase by much at all
I also don’t think you can seperate the origin and history of Buddhism, from how neophyte Westerners percieve it today. From what I have been able to research, it was spread throughout the world by “Aryan Invaders” that conquered people and set up spiritual caste systems wherever they went. That’s its historical legacy. This legacy runs thousands of years deeper than this legacy of wanting to “help the Earth” and fight pollution, and the plight of humanity by spreading a message
Historically Speaking Buddhism was used to justify peasants slaving away to supported a bloated priestly caste.
All this touchy feely World Peace and Love and Helping the Ecology, was borrowed very recently from sentiments cultivated from liberal Chriatianity, Judaism and even Roman Catholicism, that eventually shed these religious trappings. Its simply known as Humanism.
Its ridiculous really to think that disconnecting from the reality of the World will somehow inspire people to go out and make the World a better place.
I will say there is something about it that attracts me, this desire to solve the mysteries of existence and reach some higher transcendant wisdom. But there is also something about it of which I am deeply suspic
Anything that tends to enslave people, rendering them dependant, sedentary, alienated, servile, synthetic and subject is greeted with deep suspicion.
Anything that tends toward greater freedom, individuality, personal autonomy, creative expression and connection is honored and cultivated. There is a tension between freedom and connection that needs to be in balance.
Anything that tends toward greater freedom, individuality, personal autonomy, creative expression and connection is honored and cultivated. There is a tension between freedom and connection that needs to be in balance.
Name something, anything that you feel fits this this discipline AND is a spiritual path. Green anarchy is not a spiritual path. Capitalism is not a spiritual path. Living off the grid is not a spiritual path. That Michael Topper stuff is sort of a spiritual path, but the results of following it are not ones that I find any value in (nor do I think it leads towads greater freedom or any of those other things you mentioned).
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Should I find a Guru?
Honestly, no, I don’t think it would agree with you. Plus, no one could live up to your expectations of their being a true guru! (and you wouldn’t stick around if you thought they were anything less)
But perhaps finding something you can trust, maybe a teacher but probably more some kind of deity worship. Some kind of higher power that you feel you CAN trust. Not to give it power over you, but more out of humility, to accept that you can’t always know everything, that there’s stuff out there beyond our understanding, control, and abilities, and to show that you respect that.
This is not a recommendation to sheep-hood, I know you wouldn’t like that. More a recommendation to find a way to show honor and respect to something higher than yourself that you feel you can honor and respect, and to ask that thing to guide you. Just like a short prayer or something every morning. Figure out something good to place your trust in, and don’t expect any specific results from it. That’s the best thing I can think of at the moment. Some sort of combination of Bhakti Yoga and Centered Prayer, or something like that.
And being a Jati Smara is not a path either incidentally, its more of a siddhi or power.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
I hit send by accident. I was a Bishop in a past life, a fabulously wealthy Brutal, ruthless dictator of a Bishop.
As I researched Tibetan Buddhism it felt really familiar to me how these people operate. They seemed to have done everything the way I would have done it, in my Past live in 11th century England and France.
So given my past history its hard for me to accept that religious leaders create fancy titles for themselves and generate massive wealth out of a burning desire to help others.
Its hard to describe really the way it feels to be me. It probably sounds to you like I am just having delusions of grandeur.
But what it is is that I see into peoples souls. especially People that are in positions of authority. I see what they are REALLY about and it unnerves them. They became really wary of me.
Maybe I came back at this time bbecause maybe this is t
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
maybe this is the time that people are able to finally shed this power structure that has been exploiting them.
I am really not contemptuous of Spirituality.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
No, I wouldn’t say your contemptuous of spirituality.
But that sounds like some intense Karma to work out.
I see what they are REALLY about and it unnerves them.
So then what should they be about? Can you figure out a path to take to do it better? How can you start doing that now, not the spiritual leader part, but what kind of system can you develop and experiment with? What is the RIGHT way to do spiritual practice? You see these problems, what can you do to set a better example?
See, here is the thing Ian: I am figuring this out as I go along.
First of all, reading spiritual writings, trying different techniques and talking about them on blogs. I think its easy to underestimate how good of a thing that is.
But probably like you, I was thinking I needed something deeper and more focused. So I went to this Shambala thing, not as a muck raker, trouble maker, but as a sincere seeker. I went with my aunt. She was in the Moonies for 20 years and suffered spiritual abuse, but she’s kind of like me, really wanting to find a good spiritual path to get involved in, but wary.
So its really, not Like I was t
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
…Its not like I was there trying to find fault, I was there trying to find good.
But I run smack into a Shady guy. My Aunt Thought it was just going to be an hour of meditation, but it was a guest speaker, a Big guy in the organization from Nova Scotia that fies all over the World, directly trained by Chogyam Trungpa and the whole gang.
And I don’t like him, and he doesn’t like me. Because I know who he is you see? And he knows me. We are both wolves.
I’m more liable to start a cult than join one, but that’s not what I’m about either.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
Fair enough man. Just keep at it then. Deeper and more focused is a good thing. Its definitely what I’m looking for…
I just want to say one more thing if I may, I don’t really feel like I have heavy karma to work through, like karmic debt or something like that.
I know that I came from a very beautiful place right before I was born and I didn’t have to come back here.
I was born being very sensitive and loving to all people and living things.
Its just that I learned a lot in past lives about how power works and human nature. Before I was a bishop I was a berserker that was decieved by people with power over me and before that I was an ice age hunter.
When I was a berserker I was very innocent about how the world worked. I died a violent death after being betrayed.
In my next life I learned what it was like to have power. Absolute Power, both church and state. But in that life I died a peaceful death after ministereing in the Cathedral I had built. So maybe I wasn’t really evil, just very war-like. Its hard to judge really, if people are a success in life. I think if you learn whatever it was you were supposed to learn in that lifetime then you are a success.
But who knows what happened in the thousand years in between.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
And just in case that wasn’t enough links for ya’ll here’s a few more:
Free will is an illusion, biologist says
No fate but what we make… or maybe not. Is free will an illusion?
The Illusion of Conscious Will
Life Is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am’
“The highest that a man can attain is to be able to do. “
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
Thanks for the reference. This is a great post.
And now let’s take a deep breath and come out of the head brain and into the body.
Comment by Ann Seeker — March 10, 2010 @ 3:53 am
Thanks Ann. Your comment on the head brain/body is funny, because I actually have been doing a lot of body work lately. I’ve been taking a yoga class, a somatic meditation class, and a parkour class. I was recently told by my zen group that I needed to get more in touch with the body as well, which is what started this whole thing.
On the other hand, I do enjoy being in the head brain, and of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as its kept in balance. I’ve been having a lot of trouble writing lately, and also with my zen meditation. And I’m finally coming to realize that it might be exactly what you and the zen people have pointed out, I had been too much out of the body. Having brought my practice back into my body, I’m hoping I’ll now able to get back into the head brain properly, without it spinning out of control and away from the body. I just have to make sure I keep both areas of practice moving at similar speeds.
At least, that’s how I’m experiencing it. Does that make any sense at all? :)
Also, since I imagine you’re a but more familiar with Gurdjieffian exercises, do you know if there’s anything to be done for the third center (heart/emotional)? I am worried I may be neglecting that one, and would like to remedy the situation before it becomes a problem. The last thing I want to do though is find another class to take!
Though maybe a Sufi group would be helpful… I think they’re supposed to be a more heart oriented group.
Comment by Ian — March 10, 2010 @ 9:21 am
A lot of this sounds very T’ai Chi. Many movements, one movement, no movement; they all start to blur into each other.
Like, there’s this exercize where you assume a relaxed posture, knees slightly bent, feet shoulder width apart, and the instructor takes your shoulder and leans on you and pushes you over sideways. And then you do it with your eyes shut, and the whole class laughs because then the instructor /can’t/ push you over; your unconscious balance takes over and transfers the weight from foot to foot and keeps you upright. And then you laugh and you get pushed over again. The skill is to be able to do it with your eyes open. Apparently the Master of the school used to walk round the class practicing the Form, just pushing people over when he saw they weren’t doing it right :)
Comment by speedbird — March 10, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Yeah, I love those old Tai Chi master videos. Just a little nudge and WHOOMP, the students go flying.
I don’t know if you did it on purpose, but I think that Tai Chi (or more properly, Chi Kung) might be the answer to the question I asked Ann above (regarding a workout for the emotional center). My chi kung teachers’ key instructions have always been no thoughts and to smile from the heart. I always finish practice feeling lighter and happier, so its a good bet that the Chi practice is a combination emotion/body exercise.
However, I’m not sure how this ties in with the article (it seems your posting this more in response to the article, rather than my reply to Ann). I’d like to hear what exactly you meant by that.
Though I can also take a stab at making connections myself. :)
Perhaps chi is a bridge between the conscious mind and the unconscious processes in the body (I’ve actually heard yoga teachers say that in regards to prana, but its never made sense before now…)
That is, the subtle breath body can be viewed by the mind as a sort of rippling surface, underneath which lies the causal body, the actual stuff-thats-going-on, which we need to entrain our conscious awareness to (through meditation and the reduction of “static”, as well as speeding up the “frame rate” of our awareness).
This makes sense that as well, because noticing the flow of Chi in the body can unblock our energy pathways and release tension. Releasing that kind of tension can clear psychological and spiritual blockages as well.
Dunno. What do you think?
Comment by Ian — March 10, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
I have to admit I didn’t understand much of your post. Ya got me! But the bits that made sense made me think of T’ai Chi.
I was taught that Chi Kung is the ‘standing still’ activity whereas the T’ai Chi is the slow-motion in a prescribed Form (hold the ball, single whip, catch sparrow by the tail etc.) We used Chi Gung as a warmup; apparently it means ‘energy gathering’ or something like that. Hands above head, gather energy; clasp hands over Dan Tien, squirrel it away for later. Then Form.
I mean, the way you do the Form to start with is all consciousness. But after a bit it starts to flow by itself. So the intention and the action start to get muddled up. I’m not sure where it goes from here but it’s an odd feeling.
Comment by speedbird — March 10, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. The Chi Kung charges the energy, making it more noticeable to the consciousness (something I can certainly back up with my own experience) and then the Tai Chi forms are ways for the consciousness to enter into a learn about the energy. As you say, the action and intent start to mix, as with all martial arts, you begin to move without moving, wu wei…
Comment by Ian — March 10, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
Yes, the emotional center is key. It is the gateway to the higher emotional and higher intellectual centers. But there is no one exercise by which to approach it. It is a life’s Work. Although there are now many books on the Gurdjieff Work, it is actually an oral tradition that is passed from individual teacher to individual student. The teacher-student relationship is the foundation of the Work.
Ann
Comment by Ann Seeker — March 11, 2010 @ 1:27 am
Ann, thanks for that bit of information. The student-teacher relationship is something I am considering deeply at the moment, the why’s and how’s of it. I have always felt that the Gurdjieff books I’ve read seem to be pointing to something, rather than being outright explanations in themselves. It’s good to have a reason (of sorts) for this. :)
Comment by Ian — March 11, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Maybe you have the issue of The Gurdjieff Journal – which used to be called Telos which has the beginning of a 3 part series on the teacher-student relationship. It looks like you have the cover picture with Gurdjieff and Fritz Peters on your recent post. If you don’t have it you can get it here; it’s issue #14, Vol 4 No 2. Here’s the description of the article:
The form and substance of the teacher-student relationship is archetypal. Truly formed, the relationship opens the student to new life and possibilities, but in doing so, it first evokes a collision of worlds—a collision of the objective with the subjective, the time-free with the time-bound, the real with the unreal. Friction, confusion, clash and rebellion must result.
The stronger the student, the stronger this struggle. This is seen most vividly in the relationship G.I. Gurdjieff had with Ouspensky and Orage. Both students were blessed with a great intellect and thirst for knowledge. Powerful in ordinary life, confident of their abilities, neither was easy to impress or to lead. They demanded a great deal of Gurdjieff. And he of them.
Comment by Ann Seeker — March 11, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Actually, I recently bought William Patrick Patterson’s “The Struggle of the Magicians”, about the complicated relationship between Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Looking forward to reading it, though I have a few other books on my plate to get through first.
I got the picture of Gurdjieff and Fritz Peters off the Google knol article Patterson wrote on them.
Comment by Ian — March 11, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Been thinking about Tai Chi for the same reasons you seem to be into it – I have spent too much time in my analytical head, extremely disassociated from the body, which I used to think of as less-than and separate. Been doing some yoga which helps, but have to be careful where I go – these “CorePower” places are like asian-flavored aerobics classes and do very little for me … like the places that focus more on being present in the body and the breath, mindfulness, awareness, etc … any general advice on finding a quality tai chi class? I suppose I should just follow my intuition and go with the flow and see where it takes me, but I’m at work on coffee and in my head being all thinky about it. heh
Comment by Max — March 12, 2010 @ 11:56 am
(err, by “like the places” I meant “I like,” not that those places were like the CorePower studios.)
Comment by Max — March 12, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Yeah, I know what you mean about Asian flavored aerobics… And I certainly know what you mean about “at work on coffee and in my head being all thinky”!
For Tai Chi or Chi Kung, I do think it’s hard to find a good teacher. I’ve worked with a couple of teachers trained by Sifu Wong Kiew Kit, at least in regards to Chi Kung (never taken any Tai Chi classes), and they’ve both been really good.
And hey, what do you know, he’s got a student certified to teach in St Paul. What a coincidence… :)
One of the best teachers I’ve learned from though is Sifu Pragata Blaise, who’s giving a retreat in June at the Zen Monastery I go to up near Woodstock NY. If you were looking to take a vacation, it might be fun, but you’re probably better off checking with the guy in St Paul first. Even if he’s not offering classes, he might still know of someone you can contact.
As for yoga, I’d recommend Kripalu yoga. Their main focus is on being in the body, breath-body-mind connection stuff, and less on the aerobic aspect, or even the exact postures. They seem to be a little more loose about specifics, but I always leave the class feeling really light, grounded, and relaxed.
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
Hey Ted, interesting article.
In what way is (your) zazen at odds with vipassana?
Comment by Pavel — March 12, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
For some bizarre reason I called you Ted, apologies, obviously my question was aimed at you Ian.
Comment by Pavel — March 12, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
No worries Pavel. I’d say I find Zazen to be an exercise where the focus is be as completely present with the present moment as possible. The instructions we’re repeatedly given is “focus on the breath, if you have ant thoughts, see the thought, acknowledge it, let it go, and come back to the breath”. The same is true, though I don’t have any personal experience with it, if you are given a koan or shikantaza (“just sitting”) as a practice.
On the other hand, vipassana, as we both have learned it from Daniel Ingram’s book (and Kenneth Folk’s site as well, if you’re on that one) is primarily a noting practice. As a thought arises, you note it, label it, and go back to the breath.
Although they seem very similar at first glance, I find them to be very different in regards to the subjective experience of practice. Granted, I do not have an official teacher in either tradition at this point so this is a personal opinion without an official sanction or advice behind it, but I find in zazen that the thoughts and other things are almost superfluous, they are acknowledged and let go of, there is no part of the practice where you have any interaction with them. Where as in Vipassana, there is more an entering into the thought and dissecting it. Either you note it as “thinking” or “grasping” or “desiring” or even just noting one of the three characteristics, but in all cases of Vipassana, you are attaching a label to the thought to separate it from your self. In Zen, as far as I can tell, there is no labeling, just a simple acknowledgment of “there is thought here”.
I find the result if Vipassana to be a steadying of the mind, since each labeled thought is removed from the sense of self, while zazen has much more movement to it, or rather a growing awareness of our minds own movement through time.
But like I said, I don’t have any personal instruction from a teacher in either tradition to back my views, its just a personal opinion based on my present experience of having tried both practices out myself. I seem to fall more toward the Zazen side, but I think that’s just because I’ve been doing it longer. I figure, if it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it, you know?
Pavel, do you (or anyone else out there) have similar (or entirely different) takes on the matter?
Comment by Ian — March 13, 2010 @ 12:20 am
Interesting!
Noting is really weird, isnt it? Well, I do a fair mix of noting and staying with bare sensations and for me the two go really well together, noting is really useful in catching a lot of bodily/mental/emotional activity that I have never noticed before (a lot of the time it helps me realize what it is that I am experiencing), also noting is amazing when working with thought and emotions (realizing which is which, how they interact, different flavours).
Dropping the noting and just staying with experience teaches me a lot about the flavour and depth of what I am experiencing, I get much deeper into seeing what stuff is made of.
In a way, both approaches unearth more stuff that I would otherwise miss.
The take on this that Daniel Ingram has (or as far as I understand) is to do insight with the intention of not missing a single thing that arises (being as quick as possible), for as long as noting is quick enough for this, use that, when awareness speeds up drop noting, when awareness quiets down (dark Night) go back to noting. (ie. use whatever works in staying with sensate reality moment-to-moment not losing a beat).
Noting is a lot less natural than other techniques I have tried but it seems to do a lot of things better once I have grown accustomed to it.
What do you think? (BTW, in zazen, have you ever tried not letting go of the object before returning to breath? – ie. allowing awareness to stay with whatever is there, only returning to the breath if the mind wanders without your knowledge of it?)
Comment by Pavel — March 13, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Could that be just a thing to keep the francise alive? I hear that a lot with different teachings. Seems like a thing Teachers create for job security.
Comment by Ted — March 13, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
@ Pavel:
That’s interesting. I like your description of Daniel Ingram’s technique, but for me that kind of bearing down seems to grind things to a halt. I seem to spend more time worrying about finding a sensation to label, or that I’m somehow missing sensations, or something like that. It gets me lost in my head too quickly.
On the other hand, since I started with the Zazen, I can get into bare sensation relatively easily, and then when something does pop into my head, if I notice that it is beginning to distract me from the breath, I can usually pull my attention away from it by labeling it as pretty much anything. As soon as it becomes a “thing” its much more easy for my mind to recognize it as a distraction, pull out of it, and go back to the breath. I think its really just a question of how practice develops differently person to person, which has to do both which what seems to suit their personal mentality, and also, what influences acted on their practice as it was developing.
And as far staying with the distraction, as far as I’ve been taught, this is a good thing to do only when the same distraction comes up repeatedly. If it won’t go away, then you have to listen to it. But this seems to be another case of personal inclination/preference/training-history. As it is taught to you, so shall it proceed for you, at least at first…
Plus there’s the old fairy tale idea that knowing something’s name gives you power over it. Seems like maybe someone was onto to something subconscious with those…
I listened to a podcast recently about training the brain (link below) and there was an interesting part about what naming/labeling our emotions/experiences does to different parts of the brain:
“…research has shown what lots of people already experienced in therapy, but researchers really clarified it, that when you put words to your feelings, when you just label them, that does two things. One, it really stimulates activity in what’s called the prefrontal cortex—the very front part of your brain, kind of just behind the forehead; and second, it really lowers activity in this amygdala alarm circuit. And so that’s a finding that shows that the simple act of naming to yourself what you’re feeling as you’re feeling it helps to dampen this overreaction that’s driven by this negativity bias.”
and earlier in the interview, there’s an explanation of the alarm bell function of the amygdala:
For example, we understand increasingly how it is that people get emotionally hijacked by their upsets. In other words, parts of the brain, for example, one is called the amygdala, it’s an alarm bell, as it were, in the brain. The interesting thing about it is that the great majority of its neurons are focused on negative information. So it’s really looking for negative information. That was very useful when we evolved, to make sure that we had managed to duck all those sticks. I mean, it’s important to find carrots, but from an evolutionary standpoint sticks are much more important. Paying attention to sticks, to avoid lethal threats.
Seems more and more like this whole thing is about humanity consciously learning how to overcome and evolve beyond old, unhelpful instincts and habits…
Comment by Ian — March 15, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
@ Ted:
Have you ever heard anyone say the opposite, that it is not useful at all to have a teacher? The closest I can think of off hand is Crowley with his “Do what thou wilt” and 1) Crowley wasn’t the best example, and 2) even he had a pretty strict hierarchy in his organization.
There’s a reason for this, and its not just “job security”. Sure, it can be mis-used that way. Here’s a quote from a recent discussion over at “Open Enlightenment” that I feel is a good explanation of this:
This activity, guru-busting, is important to me for one reason: it’s about making sure gurus remain human in everyone’s eyes. It’s about trust, yes, but it’s more about putting everyone, guru, student and bystander, on the same plane. We’re all just human beings, flawed, troubled, beautiful.
Have you ever worked with a teacher before? Even though it can be abused, it’s certainly still a valid form of spiritual practice. I think we only hear about the bad ones, cause the good ones don’t do anything to make the local news. For the same reason that the “news” is always bad news, almost never good news.
Speaking of “good news”, there’s that quote from Jesus: “first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye.” The teacher-student relationship is an example of the second part of that quote. Teachers are people who can see things a little more clearly than we can, simply because they’ve been at it longer, or have a gift for it. They can see the things that we willfully, unconsciously blind ourselves toward (the “mote” in our own “eye) and they can help bring our attention to it.
We all have moments of seeing clearly, and we can all do this for each other to a certain extent, but there are some people who, though no better or worse than us as people, can see clearly more often than we do, and they (ideally) have learned how to skillfully help people come to see their own problems (upaya: “skillful means”).
Another point is that other people ALWAYS see our problems more clearly than we do, just as we can clearly see others problems more readily than our own. We’re used to our own problems… It’s really just a case of skillfully informed constructive criticism.
Oh, and I doubt teachers really need job security. There’s always people out there looking for someone to tell them the answer to their problems. :)
Comment by Ian — March 15, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have an inside track to God that can only be accessed through them. That’s what the whole institution of priesthood is about.
Saying that certain spiritual truths can only be learned face to face through us, is troubling. Its also dubious, because all people are basically alike and have equal access to the Spirit.
So you can be a teacher and have experience to offer, and that’s fine. But making a claim to special initiated knowledge and some type of monopoly on it, thats a red flag.
I think all corrupt Gurus are teachers and people don’t want to learn from them. So they spring up again and aga
Comment by Ted — March 15, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
They teach the same lesson over and over again.
Like “have some self respect” “trust your instincts” “don’t give your power away” “Don’t entrust your spiritual fate into another person’s hands”
I’m actually very teachable.
Comment by Ted — March 15, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Well, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said here, Ted (though I’m a little unclear what you mean in that last little bit). But we seem to be on the same page about this for once! :)
I would like to make one last point, not as an argument against what you’ve said, but just as something that came to mind after reading your comments. The abbot at the Zen temple I attend recently gave a talk addressing the problem of hierarchy in established religious groups (not that the monks and nuns ever claim to be the sole source of anything, in fact, they claim that the best teacher’s give you absolutely nothing, when it comes to spiritual training).
Anyway, he made the point that if a hierarchy is not set up, that there will pretty much be one anyway, that a social pecking order is something human beings naturally and subconsciously create, and that it can be in the best interests of ANY group to set up such an order consciously and in the open, rather than letting things be vague and undefined.
Of course, this has the potential to devolve into something like the Catholic church, where position and rank confer “spirituality” rather than the other way around. But I think it’s a good point none-the-less. Without an explicit order, there’s bound to be some kind of implicit order, which, because its not consciously recognized, can often lead to conflict and strife within the group.
Just food for thought. I don’t think there’s any easy answer to these kinds of questions.
Comment by Ian — March 16, 2010 @ 10:35 am
Well, there are ways to legislate the type of heirarchy a religious organization wants to have. Take for example a Unitarian Universalist Church. So they want a Pastor to teach them. They form a committee to look for one, then the top candidates visit and the members vote. If people become unhappy with the Pastor at some point they can fire her. So obviously the Pastor is in a leadership position, but there is a system in place to prevent abuse and also communal decision making rather than totally autocratic and top down.
Believe it or not this is the way most protestant churches work even more conservative ones, like Baptists.
With Buddhism and with these Hindu Gurus, its not like this, its totaly autocratic and top down. There is no group consensus, no vote. Everyone seems to be there at the pleasure of the Zen Master or whomever. He his a one on one relationship with all the people that others aren’t involved in. There is no consensus.
I am not saying no one can have a gift of teaching or have more expertise or expertise than others. I am not saying no one can have some type of authority.
Its just that these Eastern religious Institutions seem set up to be cult like and abusive by design,with no safegueards besides “Just trust me I’m more enlightened than you.”
Comment by ted — March 16, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Yes, I’ll agree with that as well, though there are benefits to having a “one on one relationship with all the people that others aren’t involved in” with a teacher. But the potential for abuse there is a great one, and I think its a temptation to which Westerners (and also Easterners in the west, and even Easterners in the east) have certainly proved to be uniquely susceptible to.
But this is also what Buddha did, and what Christ did, and what Socrates did, and it seemed to work pretty well in those cases. The key, I think, is honesty on the part of the teacher. The more often you find a teacher willing to “step off the pedestal” when it’s obvious that they should, the better that person is as a teacher, I’d say.
Comment by Ian — March 16, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Well, I think the problem is this expectation that God-like beings exist. Whatever Buddha or Jesus did, who knows? I think having that expectation sets people up for abuse. This seems to be the basis of the Guru relationship. Christians and Jews, for example don’t have this expectation. A Rabbi or a Pastor is seen as just a regular person with a calling to the ministry and gift of teaching or whatever, they aren’t seen as being God in the flesh.
A Guru is supposed to be God in the flesh to the point that you are supposed to worship them and do whatever they say, even to the point of abuse in order to “desroy your ego attachement. They are “realized” and know what you need and are given free reign.
That just seems really fucked up to me. I think anyone making a claim of being God Like has a really massive burden of proof to fill. I don’t see anyone filling it. As far as I am concerned its not a few bad apples, its all of them. What would a Godlike being do? Get lots of pussy? Gather lots of money? Abuse drugs and alcahol? Why get enlightened first if this is the goal? Can’t these activities be purued by non-god beings?
Followers do all sorts of gymnastics to apologize for this, like calling it “crazy wisdom” saying its part of them reaching people, etc.
It seems to be an institution created by and uniquely suited to psychopaths.
Maybe its also uniquely suited to masochists that can’t stand having power and responsibility to make decisions and seek truth for themselves.
Comment by ted — March 16, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
OK. I know what it is. Its NARCISSISM. Its the epitome of NARCISSISM to want to be GOD. So the Seeker that joins one of these cults is already a narcissist. They have this narcissistic idea that they can become god, they percieve that the guru has achieved this already. So they become a reverse narcissist.
That’s what these cults are set up to do. You project your Narcissism onto the Guru and do what they say, worship them, in the hopes that they will eventually confer this quality onto you some how or show you the way,so that ou can become a God.
That’s why people take so much abuse and give away their power, allow themselves to be sodomized, robbed and beaten. They see it has having a massive pay off of fulfilling their delusional fantasy of becoming God.
Comment by ted — March 16, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
perhaps the ‘delusional fantasy’ is that we are not all god, already. (although the notion that one is “more god” than any other being is certainly a potent delusion, as well.)
Comment by Max — March 16, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
So I am really omnipotent, omniscient etc. and so is everyone else? But I am just delusional? Like really i can levitate heal people and stuff, but i am having a powerful hallucination that indicates I can’t?
Comment by ted — March 16, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
I feel this discussion is devolving into too wide a generalization to be of any help. Ted, what you say is sometimes 100% correct, sometimes it is 100% not. It is impossible to come down on either side of this discussion without missing important truth that can only be seen from the other, and its creating a false dichotomy where there is none.
How can we NOT be God? To say that we aren’t is to place a limit on the absolute. Yet, do we have to be something special in order to be God? Isn’t that also to limit the absolute? Yet none of this means anything until we’ve actually experienced it and learned how to integrate that experience into life, until we can find personal meaning in it. Otherwise its all just tongues wagging, myself 100% included.
Comment by Ian — March 16, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Its not tongues wagging. Its an imprtant question. Its the opposite of tongues wagging. Tonges wagging is going on an on about something you purport to know about but really don’t.
I am aproaching it from the opposite angle. What do we know? How do we know these gurus know something we don’t?
If I am God and so is everyone else and so is the grass growing outside and my silverware, rocks, air etc. Than what is the point? What does the word “god” signify?
Comment by Ted — March 16, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
I’d be curious to hear your take on this Ian,
http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/true_guru.html
He has some similair stuff to that “gurubusting” guy you linked to on his website, but he seems like he still holds out hope for the existence of “true gurus” and implies that with real ones you should totally devote yourself to them and worship them as you would God.
Comment by Ted — March 16, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
That’s the thing Ted, there is no way to know. Talking about it muddies the waters, whereas the only way you can actually find out is a combination on luck, instinct, careful observation, and actual interaction with the teacher.
Comment by Ian — March 17, 2010 @ 9:31 am
As that link point out, there are possibly cases where the guru/teacher’s status as “divine” can be useful. But the guru must at all times remember that this is meant to be a skillful technique used FOR THE SAKE OF THE STUDENT, not for the gratitude of the teacher’s desires.
Can it happen? Sure, I’d say so. Does it happen? Probably, though I don’t have direct experience of it. But how can we know a teacher can be trusted? We can’t, there’s no guarantee for this. And even the best teachers will stumble or make mistakes, and even the worst teachers can potentially have something to offer.
How do we know which teacher is right for us? I have NO idea. In fact, its something I’m really trying to understand myself! :)
Comment by Ian — March 17, 2010 @ 9:37 am
Another thing that link reminds me of is that I finally went and saw Avatar!
First off, I love it, and I can see how my original thoughts on it were kind of wrong. But there’s still a really interesting juxtaposition of video game culture and oneness-with-nature culture that I find really interesting. I haven’t had a chance to sit down and write my thoughts out, but I hope to soon. :)
Comment by Ian — March 17, 2010 @ 9:49 am
I couldn’t begin to explain in a rationally compelling way what I meant by that … but that’s not to say I don’t stand by it.
I’m not much for hierarchy or following teachers either, although I don’t think this is the superior way to go, or not recognize that this path has limitations as well as potentialities. Nor do I believe that teachers are inevitably corrupt, although certainly many are. “By their fruits you will know them” was the advice Jesus gave on the matter, for whatever that’s worth. :)
Hey, how about “plant teachers”? And fungal teachers, of course …
http://www.google.com/search?&q=plant+teachers
Comment by Max — March 17, 2010 @ 9:51 am
Though I’m not all that familiar with the plant teachers myself, I think they more help us to tap into the internal teacher we all carry around with us.
Personally I hearken back to Alan Watts on this one: “when you get the message, hang up the phone…”
Which is not to say they can’t do wonderful things for some people (clearly!)
Comment by Ian — March 17, 2010 @ 10:53 am
If some guy knows how to make pottery or fix cars, its pretty obvious weather or not he has skill. So I don’t have a problem paying him to teach me or even letting him tell me what to do.
Spirituality is such a different thing. Its so much more open to con-artistry. I think its safer to assume they are all con-artists. I mean as far as buying a book or a cd that’s fine, but pledging an oath of loyalty, worshipping them, putting your life in their hands?
I mean come on. The rational explanation is that the office of Guru is designed to manipulate people. Its a ploy to brainswash and prey on people. And just like they say you can’t con an honest man, these groupy followers are partially complicit as well. That’s how it perpetuates itself even through countless reports of abuse.
People REALLY want to believe. But say that its a mystery and nobody knows what a good spiritual teacher is is a cop out. Its not that hard to figure out. You should judge them like any teacher. Does a shop teacher need you to take an oath of loyalty to them to teach them shop? Is it a secret how to fix stuff that is only available to an initiated “inner circle”? In order to learn shop is it neccessary to think of the shop teacher as having reached a state of God-like perfection?
In that context all the Guru stuff looks ridiculous and it should.
Comment by ted — March 18, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Yes, its certainly safer…
You won’t get very far in spirituality looking for a rational explanation.
Anyway, obviously you don’t take to the guru-disciple path. No worries, its one way, and it works for some people and not for others.
Have you had any luck finding a “shop teacher”? Actually, Danial Ingram seems like more a “shop teacher” type spiritual guide than a “guru” type. Have you read his book? I remember discussing the Hurricane Ranch dialogues with you before, good stuff…
Comment by Ian — March 19, 2010 @ 10:14 am
He doesn’t seem like con artist or authoritarian.
So my question then is “what is enlightenment?” is it a real thing that is the highest aspiration of humanity that everyone should strive for? Or is it simply Nihilism and the conviction that reality is unreal?
It also could be that meditation and insight practice have some real benefits at first, which implies more extreme practice would have more extreme benefits. But this may be a dubious proposition. Maybe its like the benefits of running three miles a day compared to running ultramarathons. After three miles a day the risks actually begin to outweigh the benefits, while benefits don’t increase by much at all
I also don’t think you can seperate the origin and history of Buddhism, from how neophyte Westerners percieve it today. From what I have been able to research, it was spread throughout the world by “Aryan Invaders” that conquered people and set up spiritual caste systems wherever they went. That’s its historical legacy. This legacy runs thousands of years deeper than this legacy of wanting to “help the Earth” and fight pollution, and the plight of humanity by spreading a message
Comment by Ted Heistman — March 19, 2010 @ 11:53 am
…a mesaage of Peace and Human rights.
Historically Speaking Buddhism was used to justify peasants slaving away to supported a bloated priestly caste.
All this touchy feely World Peace and Love and Helping the Ecology, was borrowed very recently from sentiments cultivated from liberal Chriatianity, Judaism and even Roman Catholicism, that eventually shed these religious trappings. Its simply known as Humanism.
Its ridiculous really to think that disconnecting from the reality of the World will somehow inspire people to go out and make the World a better place.
I will say there is something about it that attracts me, this desire to solve the mysteries of existence and reach some higher transcendant wisdom. But there is also something about it of which I am deeply suspic
Comment by Ted Heistman — March 19, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Ted, if you keep watching the waves, you’re never going to learn what it takes to make them.
Comment by Ian — March 19, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Is that a koan?
I am interested in finding things out myself without being led along blindly by some one who demands my subservience.
So that’s a pitfall. I don’t think I am more interested in pitfalls than the path itself, no.
Comment by ted heistman — March 19, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
No, its not a koan.
So what path are you on, in that case?
Comment by Ian — March 19, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
I’m on the path of the Free Range Organic Human.
Comment by Ted — March 19, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
Anything that tends to enslave people, rendering them dependant, sedentary, alienated, servile, synthetic and subject is greeted with deep suspicion.
Anything that tends toward greater freedom, individuality, personal autonomy, creative expression and connection is honored and cultivated. There is a tension between freedom and connection that needs to be in balance.
Comment by Ted — March 19, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
THATS NOT A PATH, THATS YOUR WEBSITE.
Name something, anything that you feel fits this this discipline AND is a spiritual path. Green anarchy is not a spiritual path. Capitalism is not a spiritual path. Living off the grid is not a spiritual path. That Michael Topper stuff is sort of a spiritual path, but the results of following it are not ones that I find any value in (nor do I think it leads towads greater freedom or any of those other things you mentioned).
What else do you have?
Comment by Ian — March 20, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
Should I find a Guru?
Comment by Ted — March 20, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
I am a Jati Smara.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Honestly, no, I don’t think it would agree with you. Plus, no one could live up to your expectations of their being a true guru! (and you wouldn’t stick around if you thought they were anything less)
But perhaps finding something you can trust, maybe a teacher but probably more some kind of deity worship. Some kind of higher power that you feel you CAN trust. Not to give it power over you, but more out of humility, to accept that you can’t always know everything, that there’s stuff out there beyond our understanding, control, and abilities, and to show that you respect that.
This is not a recommendation to sheep-hood, I know you wouldn’t like that. More a recommendation to find a way to show honor and respect to something higher than yourself that you feel you can honor and respect, and to ask that thing to guide you. Just like a short prayer or something every morning. Figure out something good to place your trust in, and don’t expect any specific results from it. That’s the best thing I can think of at the moment. Some sort of combination of Bhakti Yoga and Centered Prayer, or something like that.
And being a Jati Smara is not a path either incidentally, its more of a siddhi or power.
Comment by Ian — March 21, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
I was a Bishop in a past lif
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
I hit send by accident. I was a Bishop in a past life, a fabulously wealthy Brutal, ruthless dictator of a Bishop.
As I researched Tibetan Buddhism it felt really familiar to me how these people operate. They seemed to have done everything the way I would have done it, in my Past live in 11th century England and France.
So given my past history its hard for me to accept that religious leaders create fancy titles for themselves and generate massive wealth out of a burning desire to help others.
Its hard to describe really the way it feels to be me. It probably sounds to you like I am just having delusions of grandeur.
But what it is is that I see into peoples souls. especially People that are in positions of authority. I see what they are REALLY about and it unnerves them. They became really wary of me.
Maybe I came back at this time bbecause maybe this is t
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
maybe this is the time that people are able to finally shed this power structure that has been exploiting them.
I am really not contemptuous of Spirituality.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
No, I wouldn’t say your contemptuous of spirituality.
But that sounds like some intense Karma to work out.
So then what should they be about? Can you figure out a path to take to do it better? How can you start doing that now, not the spiritual leader part, but what kind of system can you develop and experiment with? What is the RIGHT way to do spiritual practice? You see these problems, what can you do to set a better example?
Comment by Ian — March 21, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
See, here is the thing Ian: I am figuring this out as I go along.
First of all, reading spiritual writings, trying different techniques and talking about them on blogs. I think its easy to underestimate how good of a thing that is.
But probably like you, I was thinking I needed something deeper and more focused. So I went to this Shambala thing, not as a muck raker, trouble maker, but as a sincere seeker. I went with my aunt. She was in the Moonies for 20 years and suffered spiritual abuse, but she’s kind of like me, really wanting to find a good spiritual path to get involved in, but wary.
So its really, not Like I was t
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
…Its not like I was there trying to find fault, I was there trying to find good.
But I run smack into a Shady guy. My Aunt Thought it was just going to be an hour of meditation, but it was a guest speaker, a Big guy in the organization from Nova Scotia that fies all over the World, directly trained by Chogyam Trungpa and the whole gang.
And I don’t like him, and he doesn’t like me. Because I know who he is you see? And he knows me. We are both wolves.
I’m more liable to start a cult than join one, but that’s not what I’m about either.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
Fair enough man. Just keep at it then. Deeper and more focused is a good thing. Its definitely what I’m looking for…
Comment by Ian — March 21, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
Oh, and I’m glad to hear you’re not looking to start any cults.
Comment by Ian — March 21, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
I just want to say one more thing if I may, I don’t really feel like I have heavy karma to work through, like karmic debt or something like that.
I know that I came from a very beautiful place right before I was born and I didn’t have to come back here.
I was born being very sensitive and loving to all people and living things.
Its just that I learned a lot in past lives about how power works and human nature. Before I was a bishop I was a berserker that was decieved by people with power over me and before that I was an ice age hunter.
When I was a berserker I was very innocent about how the world worked. I died a violent death after being betrayed.
In my next life I learned what it was like to have power. Absolute Power, both church and state. But in that life I died a peaceful death after ministereing in the Cathedral I had built. So maybe I wasn’t really evil, just very war-like. Its hard to judge really, if people are a success in life. I think if you learn whatever it was you were supposed to learn in that lifetime then you are a success.
But who knows what happened in the thousand years in between.
Comment by ted heistman — March 21, 2010 @ 10:05 pm