[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:25
Author: Hendrik - 8 April 2002
Subject: Re: Gurus R' Us-Interesting Post
In reply to:
Mike - 7 April 2002
's message, "Gurus R' Us-Interesting Post" on 08:21
I am sorry to add my two cents here folks, but someone asked me to comment on this post by David Lane.
Gurus and their equivalents do well in patriarchal cultures, not egalitarian ones like ours. In addition, we are also heavily influenced by the Christian idea of the "saint" - the man of morality, and confuse this idea with that of a yogi, which makes matters complicated.
Lane writes from the point of view of reason, not from a yogic perspective.
Yoga comes from India, and there Guru-hood has always been one of the predominant tools for achieving yogic realization.
Submitting to a supposed higher authority - flawed or not - is the key to understanding the Guru principle. It is the disciple's task to please the guru, not to criticize him.
The problem is that in India many people can do it, but people like us cannot. We come from a different society and people like David Lane apply our own standards in judging the Indian Gurus. I think it is not so much the presumptousness of the Gurus (I admit, those that travel around all the time may not be the Real Thing; I have come to know several Indians by now who advised me: Don't trust a traveling Indian! Why doesn't he stay at home? What is he after?) that is too blame for all the unrest surrounding the current Gurus but our own arrogant self-assuring mentality. We expect them to make us happy rather than teach us a lesson.
We do not have a great spiritual tradition ourselves and therefore look up to India, but we cannot easily adopt their means, it doesn't work for many of us.
What remains is the inability of the Modern Mind to adopt something that it cannot understand. People like Lane or my own humble self find joy in 'exposing' frauds and 'explaining' psycho-neurological causes to spirituality for the exact reason that we are at a loss and want to conceal the fact.
Lane in his youth was much interested in bogus cults, and several of his teachers (like Gurinder Singh, or this old Shabda renegade he knew personally, forgot his name) were religious leaders - teachers by profession - or yogis with doubtful realizations. No wonder he is barking like a dog.
I think to some of us problems with a guru have come as a frustrating lesson. But I do not see how Lane's neurologic revelations shall help one on the path of sadhana? Some people are indeed capable of accepting a Guru, but what about those who cannot? I have never found a satisfying answer to that.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |