Best Of

That's nice to hear @Bunks...

No matter where one lives, (the countryside, the suburbs, inner city, close to mountains or the ocean) there's always something of interest/beauty close by (sunrise sunset, the moon, the buildings, the wildlife, nature etc etc)...if one is present...

The mind never stops confabulating, until you tell it you are no longer interested.

I like the jokes… but the exercise was meant as a serious spur to self-examination!

For me, it made me ask whether I had lived enough from the heart. I’ve always been quite into planning and strategizing, living from the mind, and have done very few things that were spontaneous. That means I’ve been very ‘sensible’ and non-impulsive, very safe, but also that I haven’t lived from the heart very much.

If you consider what really matters to you, the things that you’d say made your life worthwhile, they’re areas which speak to your passions when you’re young. When you’re a little older you lose that fire, and people often end up in a mid-life crisis.

@Shoshin1 said:
And when it comes to blindly following a Guru...I keep this in mind...

Even some of the so called bad ones have something good/beneficial to teach/share...

So don't throw the baby (beneficial teachings) out with the bath water (the guru's bad behaviour)

True, but when you realise a guru was just a human, there is going to follow somewhat of a reassessment of their teachings. Yes, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water, but you need to identify what is baby and what is bath water.

The Joy and Quandary of Knowledge:
Once we get the answer, new questions arise.

Peace to all

@Dakini said:
Luring unsuspecting seekers into a group on the promise of spiritual development, only to take advantage of them after grooming them with false teachings to eliminate their defenses, doesn't meet even this basic level of ethics.

Yet, the to-me surprising thing is that the teachings even from this kind of environment can still be beneficial. You could call Osho a guru and his movement a cult, but the lectures he gave about things like Tseng’can’s inscription on the faith mind or on the Indian saint Kabir and his songs opened spiritual doors for his followers.

There is a saying that even the teachings of a con-man can be valuable. Sometimes the seed falls onto fertile ground.

On ‘A Little Bit Culty’ the past couple of days there have been interviews with Will Allen, who made a movie called Holy Hell (2016) about a cult called Buddhafield, which the founder modelled intentionally after Osho’s movement. He forbade his followers to read Osho’s books, because he would copy whole speeches from them, except that he would leave out the free love parts and would have gay sex with young male followers.

Might make you think…

perfect … I would like mine to say that, no name or anything else …

Good plan!

@FleaMarket said:
I'm feeling a bit blind here in my examination but I'm struggling to see how this is different from any other relationship? From my observation, the same situation one who finds themselves in with a guru could be the same situation one finds themselves in with a trusted friend or family.

Is it about the mental conditioning that takes place? Because that could be seen in friend and family and all relationships as well. Devoted family, friend, lover, student, worshiper all seem like the same person. Equally disillusioned family, friend, lover, student, worshiper all seem the same as well.

What am I missing?

It's very different from any other relationship, once a student reaches the level of receiving esoteric teachings. That's when traditionally one takes vows to obey the guru, and view the guru as the Buddha. One is required to suspend all critical thinking, or so the gurus would have people believe. That's what makes it different.

In reality, Tibetans say, that if the guru makes unreasonable demands, you should question the guru as to why he has made such a demand. You're not obligated to obey a command, if it runs contrary to the Dharma, and to your vows (or the guru's supposed vows of celibacy, for example). But cultic teachers take advantage of Westerners' lack of cultural knowledge in this regard. They may even tell a recalcitrant student, that they will go to hell, or all manner of hellish things will befall them, if they don't do as they're told.

Another way in which cultic gurus exploit Western naivety about the tradition, is that some tell the students from Day One of instruction, or early on in any case, that part of the package with their brand of Buddhism, is to view the guru as the Buddha. Students may be required from the beginning to make a number of prostrations daily to the teacher (as the Buddha's representative), not to the Buddha directly. This is a false teaching, and tends to psychologically condition the students to accept whatever the teacher says.

Traditionally, the commitment to a special bond between student and teacher is made only at the level of Highest Yoga Tantra teachings, after the student has spent many years in preliminary and intermediate teachings. But corrupt teachers routinely entrap students in this special commitment from the beginning, in order to take advantage of them. One well-known teacher even justifies his predatory behavior, by saying this is the nature of the Samaya vows; once a student has entered Samaya, they need to understand what they're in for. He neglects to say, that he routinely pushes these esoteric-stage vows on his novices, a context in which they're highly inappropriate. Even within Samaya vows at the traditional tantric level, sexual demands or demands to disrobe, are inappropriate.

And the cultic gurus will automatically at some stage--whether sooner or later--offer tantric teachings to the entire group. This, too, runs contrary to traditional practice, where it is believed that only a select few were capable of handling the esoteric practices, and that they're not appropriate for all and sundry. It's a sign of a cultic teacher, if they offer the secret teachings to everyone.

Besides, the Buddha said on his Parinirvana, that he had kept no secrets, and had given his students all the teachings. So the existence of a corpus of secret teachings comes from an element outside of what the Buddha taught. He also taught, to examine the teachings critically, because there are many false teachers circulating, and to accept any given teaching only after determining it conforms with the Dharma.

One head of a Tibetan lineage got so fed up with the scandals and complaints of abuse from within his lineage, that he designed his own "school" that was tantra-free, except for a practice involving visualizing the Buddha of Compassion. He renounced the teaching of tantra, saying it's not appropriate for this age we're currently in, and his opinion held for Himalayan society as well as Western. He set up a network of centers, which he called Bodhi Path centers, focussing the curriculum on the study and practice of the Bodhisattva path. He set a positive example, which no others have done so far. Unfortunately, he has passed away, but his Bodhi Path centers are still functioning, AFAIK.

Without the Samaya vows, the relationship between teacher and student still is not like ordinary relationships with friends or lovers. The latter are peer relationships. The spiritual teacher is not a peer; s/he is in a position of authority. As such, there's always the possibility of abusing one's authority for personal gain. This is why ethics is so important.

The teacher has a fiduciary responsibility to act only in the students' best interests. One major reason for this, is that a relatively high percentage of spiritual seekers are particularly vulnerable, due to a personal background of abuse, or have weak personal boundaries for whatever reason. This is why spiritual communities tend to attract predators. Ethical training for spiritual teachers is essential.

Back in the 60's and 70's when Hinduism was popular in the West, two court cases were won against unethical gurus on the basis of breach of fiduciary responsibility. It is an actionable legal principle, not a mere theory of ethics. This principle does not apply to peer relationships, which is the main reason any student-clergy relationship is different. It's the element of authority over the members of the congregation, that sets it apart from ordinary peer relationships.

The Buddha introduced ethics even into relationships between peers, by teaching to avoid deception, and to be open and honest in one's communication with others. Luring unsuspecting seekers into a group on the promise of spiritual development, only to take advantage of them after grooming them with false teachings to eliminate their defenses, doesn't meet even this basic level of ethics.

Such problems were foreseen by one of Mahayana Buddhism's fundamental teachers after the Buddha: Nagarjuna. In his Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, which all Tibetan teachers study, he provides a guideline for avoiding sexual misconduct with students, specifically. Cultic gurus don't teach this brief text from Nagarjuna's Treatise.
https://repstein.faculty.drbu.edu/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/sexDZDL.html?fbclid=IwAR2zyuoijf3W3Hykgmy0gIGG41Wfa2PnWzZwX997db2c1tD2Oh2-bu8uyI4