Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj was a student of Ramana Maharshi (a widely recognized Hindu proponent / believer) His style is unique and insightful, a man with the equivalent education of a third grader and a perspective and method of expression paralleled by few. I feel that it would be beneficial to those interested in penetrating the surface level of society and reality to take the time to seriously consider the ideas that he presents. The book �I AM THAT is a series of question / answer conversations (much like Krishnamurti�s The Awakening of Intelligence) People from all walks of life come to question this �enlightened� being. I found the questions to be nearly as interesting as the answers. Because the questioners asked questions I had yet to personally consider.
You could say that the book encourages a existential perspective but the twist is the identity of that which �exists�. The question which Ramana and also Nisargadatta ask most often of their visitors is �What am I?� (or what is it that you are?) Meaning although �I� know that I exist, what is it that I am? (if only a simple combination of genetic and environmental circumstances then my entire self is circumstantial and insignificant and beyond that my persona or mental image of myself is an illusion based on what I wish to believe I am) Maharaj eloquently opens the western mind to the idea of non-duality. Introducing the same concepts which Carl Jung, Lao Tzu, and arguably the Buddha and Christ have spoken of throughout the last few thousand years. And therein unfolds the mystery of what Maharaj describes as absolute subjectivity. Identity with the universe as a whole, without contemplating this state of existence and applying it to an individual ego. And the reason that I find this concept so beautiful and inspiring is that Maharaj argues that the realization of this state is extremely simple and natural. His only �method� is to inquire continually �What am I?� He states that this thought alone applied with genuine earnestness can bring us to a direct understanding of non-dual reality. His comprehension and ability to express are certainly indicative of an intelligence beyond what can be acquired through traditional categorical memory learning. Truly a book that will deepen your appreciation for the fascinating intricacies of the mind and reality. Question everything and trust only direct experience. What misunderstandings do you base your daily operations and thought on?

Thank you for the space to share this brilliant mans� book and message. Please allow me the opportunity to clarify any unclear statements if so inclined. Or just read the book and it will become clear.

Samsara:

I've read this book, although several years ago, and found it encouraging in some ways, but limited in that the method, like Shri Ramana Maharshi's, is quite mental. This works fine for some, but there are other non-dual methods that incorporate body awareness as a means of openness that some report as more lasting and integrative, especially when sustained attention within the present moment unleashes the kundalini and often painful, subconscious psychic contents. Many of these non-dual teachers are at quite a loss when it comes to helping their students deal with these residual effects, either because they don't understand western psychology and culture, or because their own path didn't involve denser karmic patterns to dissolve, or even because they themselves weren't as awakened as their teachings were inspiring.

Have you considered the Tibetan Buddhist non-dual tradition Dzogchen and its tantric feature that incorporates body awareness as a means of sustaining oneself in the present moment? Although this presents a more traditional understanding of tantra, as described in the book "Passionate Enlightenment," there is still the need to consider the western psychosocial backdrop when seriously undertaking such a discipline. I'd also recommend Pema Chodron's work for its gentleness re: body awareness as the foundation for cultivating present-moment awareness; she has several popular books.

One additional thought here is that the adept you speak of, and others like him, really had very few disciples that went on themselves to apparently permanent states of awakening. This can be disillusioning in itself, which can turn into a new, raw opening, or a dark period that is quite disturbing when one has been riding the coat-tails of a now dead guru.

W.C.
First of all I want to emphasize my appreciation for taking the time to review my post and offer your insight and personal experience. I would like to address some of your statements in order to further express my perspective. The first thing I would like to point out is I recognize the potential harm of exposing certain individuals to ideas of this depth. I am careful to recommend material which I determine to be most appropriate for the individual inquiring. For example I have a friend who has shown some interest in my system of thought. Initially I offered him the book �Consciousness Speaks� written by Ramesh Balsekar. (the only acknowledged master to follow in Nisargadattas� footsteps to enlightenment) This book overwhelmed him psychologically, and after considering my own personal development I realized it would be more helpful to provide him with a simpler starting point. The book he is now nearly finished with is �Awakening the Buddha Within� by Lama Surya Das. I believe this is precisely the tradition to which you were referring. The thing that interests me is that it seems that you present this particular set of beliefs as being contradictory to the ideas which are professed by Maharaj and the like. I have personally found Dzogchen to be identical in spirit to the ideas of Ramana Maharshi, Lao Tzu, Ken Wilber, Allen Watts, Stanislov Groff, Michael Talbot, J. Krishnamurti, etc . . . I have actually come up from a Christian family and feel that much of what is in the bible proclaims these same truths. �The kingdom of heaven is within�, �become as a child�, and something to the effect of the mind of god and christs� are one. Maharaj speaks of 3 types of �enlightened people� The man of knowledge, the man of action, and the man of truth. Each of these is no more or less enlightened than the other, but perhaps the type of enlightened person you would become depends on the type of path you choose to walk. (Which would be determined by the type of ego that you have identified yourself with). It seems that you have found a path which is effective for you, but in considering this one belief alone with its prostrations, etc. . . I find to me there are limitations in its application. I think it would be fair to say that what rings most true to me does not ring most true to you, and I would encourage you to follow those personal insights. However I feel it is unfair to place unnecessary attention on the possible negative effects of this �enlightened persons�� advice. I do feel with proper earnestness and comprehension it would be truly impossible for any harm to be done in the end. The paths to enlightenment may vary but that final enlightenment is one and the same. (to clarify, I spoke of the three types of enlightened being I believe that these being exist in the same absolute reality but due to their individual pasts express that truth through varied methods and energies.) I am a man of thought coming to truth through personal introspection and analysis. That is where I am in this moment and I only ask a shared respect of ideas and values. Maharaj�s method may not be perfect for everyone, but neither is anything else. Think of the guilt of Christianity, the frustration of Zen, the repetition of Buddhism etc . . . The diversity of methods have sprung from individuals personal success and experience branching out due to their lack of success through traditional methods. If a person takes anothers advice and goes on a journey inward, he may find horrible things, he may experience the dark night of the soul, or he may touch bliss, �or experience� the non-dual. In either case there is nothing the master could truly do about it. That is the nature of the journey, you must walk it alone and face mortality, and the transpersonal bands of yang (along with yin). If we wish to think along a Karmic rebirth nature of reality than it could be proposed that this hell, or suffering encountered during this inner seeking was a critical element in the souls development. The addressing and overcoming of a severe blockage is necessary, and if a person has come upon this mans� writing and found it valuable then for him at that time it is necessary. I have rambled far too long, I would simply point out that Balsekar is still alive therefore I am not yet living on coattails of dead men. And I would present the question How many has your system of belief enlightened? Or any other system for that matter. I think it unfair to judge the enlightened status of the master on his disciples success. Your time and thoughts are appreciated.

Samsara:

First of all, I wouldn't say any system does the enligthening of anybody; but that may be semantics and not what you meant to imply. As for judging a master's qualities, probably the only sincere and concrete way would be to observe him or her over a long period of time and see what kind of relationships are developed with students. All teachers, and from any tradition, IMO, are vulnerable to deceit and manipulation of others, just in being human. We know, for instance, that the great Kalu Rinpoche, one of the seminal teachers of the Dali Lama and the previous Karmapa of the Kagyu Tibetan Buddhist lineage, sexually exploited one his western students. Considering Kalu Rinpoche as one recognized by many other masters as enlightened (having reached the 9th or 10th buhmi, with all the virtues said to accompany such transformed awareness), we can see both the futility of evaluating a master in any precise way, and the need to dispense with our naive expectations of another human being - expectations which often involve the developmental issues of the western student that are culturally peculiar and not well-understood by eastern teachers; this much the Dali Lama has admitted.

My main concern is with this common incongruence reported by so many former disciples of various eastern teachers, where cultural precepts often diverge, and even the understanding of morality and respect create differences that westerners often have to pretend don't exist, or posture themselves around. And I've met a number of good-hearted, wise, eastern teachers, but the disciples who spend the most time around them tend to go through a phase of idealization, where they deny what they are seeing, and then either leave feeling exploited or develop a more sober appreciation of the limits of the guru's personality. Even though the guru may be mature enough to allow for these disparities and not exploit the student, understanding the cultural affects impacting the relationship, at times the boundaries needed create enough friction to prompt the severing of the relationship. The guru often can't manage the psychology of the western student, even though otherwise enlightened qualities would suggest so.

Obviously gurus can't, and shouldn't try, to control their students. Even so, their highest value should be the student's safety, which paradoxically requires them to admit, at least to themselves, the limits of their perceptions. Saying this is the case out loud can be disillusioning for the student who sought the guru out of desperation, but essential for the preservation of real virtue and safety.

Another aspect to consider here at Shalom is the distinction made on many threads between kundalini and the Holy Spirit. Many come here because they've had enough kundalini arousal to realize that the energy doesn't constitute a deep devotion from the heart. The psychological fall-out of these experiences couldn't have been anticipated, even though warnings may have been given. But in experience, kundalini and the Holy Spirit are vitally different, one created, the other uncreated, but such conceptual distinctions simply cannot approximate experiential understanding. And I must say that what I understand to be the peaceful endowment of Holy Spirit is seldom reported among beginning students in eastern circles, although quite common among Christians and Jews and Sufis who practice a simple devotional, theistic faith. And so there seems to be much more effort to cultivate non-dual awareness than to relax into a relationship with the Divine that already exists.

As for distinctions between body types, personalities, and accomodating paths, yes . . . these considerations are in every religious faith. But whatever is most simple and direct would go a long way in easy this struggle, and give seekers a sense of being able to trust their own intuition. In the case of westerners, I think there is the need to offer the theistic orientation in ways that integrate well with the cultural biases they try so hard to overcome in order to fit in with others who often don't understand them very well.

BTW, it would be easier to respond to your posts if you used paragraphs.

Last thoughts for the evening: Eastern teachers, especially of the guru variety, tend to expect students, regardless of cultural background, to abandon their ego, often to the guru for his or her keeping so it can be destroyed, dissolved etc . . . with many strict and frighteing consequences stated should the student develop this sort of relationship and then drop out, abandoning the loyality tie. This sort of relationship is more proper, and better understood, by eastern born students whose experience of family centers around tribal-like family kinship ties, where notions of ego are suppressed early on. OTOH, western students who seek out their eastern teachers from a deep sense of past deficiency are asking for a lot of confusion, heart-ache, and distorted kundalini if they follow a path like this that is psychologically incompatible with their subconscious needs. The guru, in most cases I'm familiar with, often only understands these differences to a limited degree, even though he/she may truly, deeply care for the welfare of the student.

Good to see some interreligious dialogue happening on this thread. Stay with it . . .

Samsara, you write: I have personally found Dzogchen to be identical in spirit to the ideas of Ramana Maharshi, Lao Tzu, Ken Wilber, Allen Watts, Stanislov Groff, Michael Talbot, J. Krishnamurti, etc . . .

I don't know who would be included in the "etc." (the Buddhists?), but I agree with you that there are similarities in the teachings of the people you list and of the mystical consciousness to which they attest.

You then go on to say: I have actually come up from a Christian family and feel that much of what is in the bible proclaims these same truths. �The kingdom of heaven is within�, �become as a child�, and something to the effect of the mind of god and christs� are one.

What you're doing now is equivocating teachings on enlightenment with Biblical teaching, invoking your personal experience and feeling as the basis for this point, loosely quoting a couple of texts which don't necessaarily apply. I disagree with your point and its justification, here, and have stated why in more detail on this thread. Our discussions on Hawkins' map of consciousness have also explored the similarities and differences between enlightenment teachings and Christian contemplation. Just FYI. Perhaps you'd be interested in some of those discussions to get a better idea of what we've already gone over on this discussion board.

Phil and others have detailed on other threads the importance of distinguishing theistic religions from the non-dual systems that are common to the Orient. Perhaps there are some Jim Arraj links for this as well . . . .

I'd like to make some obvious points along these lines, since there appears to be a western fascination for the Oriental ideal that blinds itself to some universal human limitations, at least until the seeker actually gains a close familiarity with Buddhist and Hindu teachers. I've referred to the cultural differences as signs of human limitation, and the moral breakdowns that are not uncommon in guru-disciple relationships, often rationalized by the western devotee until there is enough pain and heartache to assign realistic blame/responsibility to the offending teacher. But here are simple notions that are apparent to anyone thinking along these lines:

Equating non-duality in the human being to the transcendental Divine would require the person to: 1)literally create out of nothing (and not just hocus pocus with ashes in the hand); 2)continuously maintain the nondual state (which ortodox Buddhists deny is even possible) along with purely virtuous behavior, i.e, no emotional reactions indicating the existence of an ego; 3) an incorruptability of the body, since non-duality posits the notion of a non-dual body, or body of light (Rainbow Body), as well, effectively transcending death.

IOW, one would expect the non-dual nature of reality, as argued, to permeat everything, since the assumption is that the created and the uncreated are ultimately the same.

And here is an interview with the female western student of the late, venerable Kalu Rinpoche, who broke her silence and after his death reported his sexual exploitations. Please read the entire interview, since it has much relevance beyond the particular sexual abuse in its discussion of the cultural biases often ignored by western students in their yearning for someone perfect to project upon:

http://www.anandainfo.com/tantric_robes.html

Tricycle: You ended up feeling sexually exploited? Used for personal indulgence?

Campbell: Obviously at the time and for some years afterwards I didn't think this. How could I? It would have caused me too much distress to see it in this light. It took me many years of thinking about the whole thing to see it differently, and to begin speaking about my experience. This wasn't easy. I tried through writing to understand why people rationalize these acts as beneficial, and it made me question a lot of things. I've got no doubts now that when a male teacher demands a relationship that involves secret sex, an imbalance of power, threats, and deception, the woman is exploited. You have to ask, "Where does the impulse to hide sexual behavior come from?" Especially if it happens in a system that supposedly values the sexual relationship. Of course, there are those who say they are consensually doing secret "tantric" practices in the belief that it's helping them become "enlightened," whatever that means. That's up to them, and if they're both saying it, that's fine.

But there's a difference between that and the imperative for women not to speak of the fact that they're having a sexual relationship at all. What's that all about if it's not about fear of being found out! And what lies behind that fear? These are the question I had to ask.

Tricycle: You were sworn to secrecy by him?

Campbell: Yes. And by the one other person who knew. A member of his entourage.

Tricycle: What might have happened if you had broken the silence?

Campbell: Well, it was assumed that I wouldn't. But I was told that in a previous life, the last life before this one, Kalu Rinpoche had a woman who caused trouble by wanting to get closer to him, or by wanting to stay with him longer. She made known her own needs, made her own demands, and he put a spell on her and she died.

Tricycle: Just the way child abusers deal with their victims: "If you tell, something bad will happen to you.
"

Campbell: Yes, there are many similarities. It instills fear in the context of religion. Put yourself in my
position. If I had refused to cooperate I would still have known something that was threatening to the lama and his followers. Where would I have gone from there? If I'd wanted to talk about it no one would have believed me. Some people don't believe me now. And what if I'd spoken out and the lama had denied it publicly? Could he still have been my teacher? I don't think so. As it was I was happy to comply at the time because I thought it was the right thing to do and that it would help me. But I was still very, very isolated and afraid for years to speak about it.

In my own experience, despite the absence of a Tibetan upbringing, there were quite specific motivating factors that helped to keep me silent over many years. These factors were probably similar to those which influenced Tibetan women over the centuries. . . . Firstly, there is no doubt that the secret role into which an unsuspecting woman was drawn bestowed a certain amount of personal prestige, in spite of the fact that there was no public acknowledgment of the woman's position. Secondly, by participating in intimate activities with someone considered in her own and the Buddhist community's eyes to be extremely holy, the woman was able to develop a belief that she too was in some way "holy" and the events surrounding her were karmically predisposed. Finally, despite the restrictions imposed on her, most women must have viewed their collusion as "a test of faith," and an appropriate opportunity perhaps for deepening their knowledge of the dharma and for entering 'the sacred space."

Tricycle: There are Westerners who knew you when you were with Kalu Rinpoche, who were also close disciples. They did not explicitly know what was going on at the time, yet some of them say now that they are not surprised by your book, that they "knew" without really knowing and that the sexual behavior of lamas, so-called celibate or not, is so pervasive that, in addition to their respect for your personal integrity, there would be no reason to question your veracity At the same time, students in the West who never knew Kalu Rinpoche are disputing you story. And I have already received phone calls from two Tibetan lamas in the Kalu Rinpoche lineage asking me not to publish any of your work and accusing you of making all this up, saying, in both cases, "this June Campbell had a fantasy of having an affair with Kalu Rinpoche."

I couldn't find June Campbell's book "Traveler in Space" on Amazon . . . interesting . . . .

IOW, one would expect the non-dual nature of reality, as argued, to permeat everything, since the assumption is that the created and the uncreated are ultimately the same.

That's an interesting point, w.c., but one that some of the non-dual panentheists have countered by positing a bi-modal nature to God -- spiritual and manifest. John Heron and I went round and round about this before finally calling it quits. His view (as many others) is that God is both transcendent AND manifest -- i.e, the universe is God's manifest body. I think that's still monism (even if not pantheism), but at least it accounts for a distinction between the physical and spiritual realms.

Here's an interesting link to articles and interviews by those who claim to be closely familiar with eastern teachers critical of the west's somewhat naive embrace of Tibetan culture and Buddhist ideals:

http://www.trimondi.de/Kalachakra/dec.eng..htm

Phil:

My main point here is that regardless of the paradigm used to argue the manifest nature of God, one would still expect to find an enlightened human being free of moral imperfections, if what the non-dualists are saying is correct. And such a person simply doesn't exist, or at least the ones held up to this popular ideal eventually fall under some basic scrutiny. I think what you'll see in these links I've posted is the exploitation of the notion of Samsara as the body of God justifying tantric notions that permit abusive behavior, all in the name of "crazy wisdom," or fervor for an absolute alchemical rationalization of behavior. It's the somewhat amoral box non-dualists build for themselves in trying to maintain perfection at the level of creation.

I follow, w.c. Just was letting you know how some have responded to the point about non-duality and the body. Your point about moral imperfection is a good one, but, as you've anticipated, it's often justified in terms of "crazy wisdom" or of divine notions concerning morality that greatly transcend our measley human notions. So, who are we to judge the behavior of an "enlightened one"?

- - -

(Not pertaining to morality) My sense in all this has been that the nondual experience is real enough, as I've tasted it deeply many times. Problems arise when people talk about it using ontological terminology. I don't think nondual experiences necessarily imply ontological monism, but that the kind of discussion many who are into New Age and Eastern thinking don't want to get into.

Yes. And my sense in being around those who have a more abiding non-dual awareness is that it isn't permanent. If non-duality is, in fact, an opening to the uncreated, then little wonder this impermanency, given what this mortal coil, even for all its intelligence, can embody. One should at least be able to find a 200 year old sadhu laying around somewhere, whose uncreated condition of awareness is renewing his telemeres i.e., youth.

Well, there's Babaji.

And so many really buy into this stuff. It's so narcotic. Kalu Rinpoche was treated as just such a perfected human being, but the real story sounds like somebody you'd never guess was one of the primary teachers of the Dali Lama.

There's a part of me that wants to entertain, even believe, some of these supernatural possibilities. Such stories are inspiring, except when they just sound plain deluded, as many of those do in your link. But even more so, when the lack of virtue of the real people behind the glorified image becomes evident, then all bets are off, in my book. Kalu Rinpoche had sexual needs no human can ever transcend, and so to call them something else while having subservient female disciples intimately close must really require some serious brain-washing before discovering the moral corruption to be just what it is.

There's a part of me that wants to entertain, even believe, some of these supernatural possibilities. Such stories are inspiring, except when they just sound plain deluded, as many of those do in your link.

Far be it from me to comment on the enlightened�ahhh, when has that ever stopped me before?! Charlatan spiritualists can give religion a bad name as surely as charlatan scientists can give science a bad name. If you ask me (and I'm so glad you did, WC) the belief in charlatans (and those who act as the charlatans) is driven by two things: the desire to transcend our earthly realities and the instinct to connect with realities that aren't earthly. But before you can run you have to learn how to walk. It's a wonderful to think that we are only one thought, mood, or state of mind from an enlightened experience. The reality is that a lot of work has to be done if one is going to master anything. Generally there are few if any shortcuts in life. But how nice to think that we could get around all that and just declare ourselves enlightened and have to robe (and I guess now a harem) to prove it.

That's view is, I hope, not indicative of rampant cynicism as I do believe that the Buddha was probably a genius and did grasp (a la Einstein) different realities (states of mind, I guess, in his case) and truths. Before there was the scientific method and laboratories like MIT there were surely great minds and these minds probed and studied what they could. The Buddha dared to jump straight to studying reality and I think he did a fair job of it, although so much of the actual history, I think, has been garbled in its handing down and so much of Buddhism today is absolutely�well, I'll stop there.

There's a part of me that wants to entertain, even believe, some of these supernatural possibilities. . .

It's worth mentioning here that the East is not alone in its stories of spiritual heroics. Get yourself a copy of Butler's Lives of the Saints and enjoy . . . Amazing stories and miraculous feats! The difference is, however, that none of these Christians thought they were God, and they were always quick to acknowledge their flaws.

Brad:

The bottom line with charlatans is that they have been given the room by others for their exploitations. There's always more than one involved when otherwise naive students put themseles in harm's way, at first perhaps out of ignorance, but when they hang around for the abuse and act like it's just being a good disciple and their teacher is faultless, then it's also an indication of the same arrogance/narcissism which describes their teacher.

With the Tibetan Lamas, as the links above describe, there is a tradition of family kinship authoritarianism that most western students don't even identify; it's all so mystical to them in the beginning, with the foreign language so steeped in religious tradition, the prayer flags, the eerie music, the mountain austerities, etc . . . As Phil says, Christianity has this version of authoritarianism, too, which is more proper to the military than a religious community. Tibetans, of course, were always aware of their tenuous hold on sovereignty, isolated between India and China but not immune, and so that sort of heirarchy is needed to hold the tribe together. In their isolation they haven't had to answer to any modernizing cross cultural effects except via China's destructive influence. But there is a built-in clash between that culture and the west, and no surprise that westerners suffer, since they are the students invited to surrender all their interpersonal power to the guru.

The Western idealization of eastern gurus isn't unlike the far-left's idealization of ethnic groups, and the often blind, protective reaction when questions are raised about the accountability of minorities. Little surprise, then, to find the vast majority of guru seekers being of the far-left persuasion politically. It's the converse of th far-right that will accept a preacher who screwed them over and over again, eventually landing in jail, righ back into their church community to do it all over again i.e, people who are more afraid of thinking for themselves and looking at how they treat each other than being abused, which is often what they've grown up with anyway. Don't want to question that, or who will draw the line on the questioning?

So one wonders what the public scandal over Kalu Rinpoche's sexual abuse of a female student has procured in the way of new cautions and considerations to protect folks from this misuse of authority . . . . We're talking about an ancient system of power that has remained stable/stagnant for centuries, as has the the Papal environment of the Vatican, and so change usually only comes when external indictments are made. The Vatican is still protecting sexually abusive priests from prosecution (often still letting them work in local churches), and although these cases represent a minority of priests, the fact they are being protected suggests a more pervasive form of corruption in the system that should be controlling the problem from the inside-out.

The Western idealization of eastern gurus isn't unlike the far-left's idealization of ethnic groups, and the often blind, protective reaction when questions are raised about the accountability of minorities.

That sounds about right.

Little surprise, then, to find the vast majority of guru seekers being of the far-left persuasion politically.

Heck, the Dali Lama is far-left politically.

So one wonders what the public scandal over Kalu Rinpoche's sexual abuse of a female student has procured in the way of new cautions and considerations to protect folks from this misuse of authority

Buyer beware, as far as I'm concerned. I don't particularly want government "protecting" us from religion.

Unlike those who close their eyes to abuses in other areas of society and focus on religion only because of their hatred of it, I realize that abuses are problems inherent in institutions that are holders of any kind of power. What can surely worsen the abuses though is if those institutions are based on immoral ideas and principles or represent immoral ideas and principles in practice. That's why my critique of Islam and Christianity are going to look different. In the former case it would seem that one needs to overlook a fair amount of stuff that is included in the official texts in order to be a good and peaceful Muslim. Many apparently do. Christianity, as far as I'm concerned, is not laden with the minefields of perverse teachings. One has to go consciously counter to the teachings of Jesus in order to get into trouble. Surely I perceive that the Catholic Church has done this in the past and its current institutional gluttony and rigidity facilitates or masks the sexual abuse problems. But I still say there's a difference between good institutions run badly and bad institutions run (by some miracle if this ever happens with such institutions as communism) run well.

And as long as I'm speaking frankly, and I'm not sure about Hinduism, but many Buddhist and other leftists seem, to equate navel-gazing with compassion and wisdom. If it were up to the Dali Lama (and correct me in case he's changed his views) we would all be living in a communist utopia. Buddhism is even now verging, at least in my eyes, of becoming a bad institution.

But live and let live, I guess. People need to figure this stuff out for themselves and there's probably no interrupting the step some people need to take on the road to wisdom, even if that is being hoodwinked by a guru.

Another, related thought . . .

Interesting how the authoritarian system (as opposed to authoritative i.e, limited sharing of power between parent and children as is developmentally appropriate for the latter), such as in a family, strongly dissuades the development of individual egos, which is actually protective re: the abuses of a narcissist who lacks him/herself a cohesive sense of individuality outside the system they control that covers for their inadequacies. And so when easter teachers, or western priests/preachers, demand surrender of the seeker's autonomy, there is already something awry in the seeker, unless of course the person is a child. In the east, where family kinship ties still prevail, the function of the guru in eradicating the disciple's ego was consistent with the displacement of individual power within the family. When westerners, many seeking their eastern gurus out of the need for healing of wounds accrued from within their own families, encounter this system, the very opposite from what they expect tends to happen. The guru takes on the form of the abusive parent, and many of the disciple's subconscious tendencies are allowed to play out, since it must be the disciple's fault that the guru is displeased (not unlike the child's response to abusive parents), and with all the cultural trappings and language barriers, this underlying tension is easily obscured.

"But I still say there's a difference between good institutions run badly and bad institutions run (by some miracle if this ever happens with such institutions as communism) run well."

Yes. And hopefully there is enough tolerance for internal dissent within the Vatican to heal its own wounds without too much involvement from secular government. At this point, that much remains unclear. The flexibility needed for an institution to question itself over such issues requires a fairly mature psychology (almost a contraindication in terms), which clerics, whether abusers or not, are often not even exposed to in school, as far as formative spirituality is concerned. That much is changing, but the old guard still runs the place. But your comment about Christianity's founder laying a substantial groundwork for that sort of intelligence, contrasted to Mohammed, is really important. Buddhism has developed so many complex versions of its own original teachings, and been immersed/isolated in tribal family kinship-based culture for so long, that one can see how its struggles are more like Islam's.

Interesting how the authoritarian system (as opposed to authoritative i.e, limited sharing of power between parent and children as is developmentally appropriate for the latter), such as in a family, strongly dissuades the development of individual egos, which is actually protective re: the abuses of a narcissist who lacks him/herself a cohesive sense of individuality outside the system they control that covers for their inadequacies.

WC, I think the ins and outs of authority is a very complex and interesting issue all by itself. One absolutely needs the positive aspects of authority in order to learn how to live a healthy, responsible life as a human being in a particular society (and hopefully not a dysfunctional society or else one will learn that dysfunction readily enough). The question is always one of how much and what kind.

I say there are clearly two kinds of authority. The first kind is wielded so that the other may become independent and powerful in their own right. The other is wielded in order to keep an individual dependent and thus increase the power of one�s teacher (or of one�s severely controlling culture). It�s probably never that cut-and-dried but I think those are useful guidelines.

No wonder so much of that controlling type of guru-ing turns to sexual explotation. It wouldn�t be the first time that sex was used to try to sanctify some otherwise dubious practice or relationship.

In the east, where family kinship ties still prevail, the function of the guru in eradicating the disciple's ego was consistent with the displacement of individual power within the family. When westerners, many seeking their eastern gurus out of the need for healing of wounds accrued from within their own families, encounter this system, the very opposite from what they expect tends to happen.

That certainly sounds like a very plausible explanation, WC.