How To Rate A Guru
File under: Real True Gurus
We look up to Bobby Meizer now. It wasn't always the case. Then this guy named Donald Brewer showed up and became a model for us. It turns out that "Donald" was Bobby, and we've been big fans ever since.
Today on GuruRatings, Bobby laid it down on guru rating:
One basic issue in Guru Rating is whether and how one can judge a guru's realization (or degree of realization, if one believes in degrees of realization). Does realization affect personality and behavior in a recognizable way? I have two positions on the subject, one based on logic, and the other on personal experience.Love takes many forms, even that of this blog, believe it or not. We thank Bobbyji for providing such a clear rendering of the reality of self-realization, free of the nonsense expectations many gurus traffic in as a way to fill seats at their satsang.
Logic tells me that if I accept the premise of nonduality then there is nothing that is not That. As someone who I consider realized once told me, "You can do anything, even murder, as long as you can go laughing to the executioner." If nothing makes any difference then nothing makes any difference. By that argument, which makes sense to me, there is no behavior or personality type that is especially associated with realization.
My other position is based on the fact that my own experiences with samadhi have always left me less attached to my habitual patterns of engagement with people and things. I have become more loving and less fearful. I imagine that realization is not being attached to anything, being all love and no fear. How would that manifest in gurus' personalities and behavior? Removal of fear means they would do whatever their heart and mind bid them with total authenticity. Can I detect that in their behavior? One can't always recognize love or fear for what they are, but those are the qualities I think are most indicative of a person's realization (or degree thereof).
posted by guruphiliac @ 9:22 PM
3 Comments:
To me it is very strange, Jody, that you can accept the ideas about right/wrong above, while describing as a "descent into pychosis" the notion of "experiencing" oneness.
I don't see them as notions of right and wrong. What Bobbyji is saying is that the Self is entirely outside of all notions of right and wrong. And I'm not sure you're representing me correctly here. If someone has an experience of being everything, that is psychosis. If one knows themselves as oneness in a direct, experiential reckoning, that is realization. There is a distinct difference between the two.
Regarding "experiences with samadhi," one cannot experience the Self, yet one can experience samadhi, which results in that direct reckoning known as self-realization. So, one can have an experience of samadhi which leads to the experiential revelation of the Self as the foundation of one's being, which is not an experience.
Capiche?
To use these words in the way Bobby has, without qualifying them in any way, can be seen as a condoning or promoting a philosophy of action which denies any kind of morality.
So what? Decent folks know they need treat others the way they'd like to be treated. Anyone else is a sociopath and will probably commit offenses whether or not they are exposed to Bobby's ideas.
My Guru would include these “experiences with samadhi” in the same boat as any other attempt by the ego to imagine the Self.
If Bobby was able to talk to your guru, one-on-one, I'm sure he'd understand that what Bobby is talking about is the real thing.
Samadhi is a state of mind and being which appears to allow the experiential recognition of the Self to arise in a life. Once that recognition has emerged, that person can be said to be self-realized.
>> If someone has an experience of
>> being everything, that is
>> psychosis.
Why?
Because experience is limited to the realm of name and form and the nervous system. Our nerves don't extend beyond our body, so any experience is contained within the nerves, and any experience of being everything can only be a delusion.
I would never take the word of anyone that they were Self Realized, if that person insinuates that there is no difference, to the ones speaking and hearing these words, between moral and immoral actions.
There will always be a difference to the person, there has never been a difference to the Self.
I still think you are partial and this colors your perceptions.
And as a person, it will always be this way. This is an opinion blog, my friend. I offer my opinions about spiritual culture as it relates to gurus and self-realization. As I like to say, you can take them as worth something or throw them over the fence like yesterday's dog poop.
In terms of society, wouldn’t they have created more illusions, more pain for themselves and others?
Knowing that we exist beyond moral imperative doesn't mean that we live outside of it.
While in a body, one is always an individual, and that individual lives under a social contract. The adherence may vary, but knowing the truth of our being as beyond morality doesn't mean everyone is going to run amok.
Are his students and his victims closer to realization because of this?
Some of them might be!
Not to justify an abusive guru, just to say that sometimes people recover beautifully from such an experience.
Decent people by the millions can be convinced to kill complete strangers, under the influence of the ideas of authority figures.
But it wasn't because of Bobby's take on nondual philosophy.
if he presents himself as teacher, I feel Bobby or anyone else should qualify these kinds of statements, so that in the relative world, illusory though it may be, more illusions are not created. I am not disputing the “Truth” of the ideas.
That's a problem you'll have with all ideas, not just Bobby's.
And I'm not sure he's presenting himself as a teacher. He does have a small web presence, but I think he's more of a "this is how I see it kind of a guy."
I am not suggesting that either Bobby or my Guru are hemp smokers.
Ramakrishna was.
When the average person says, “I am everything.” They are usually trying to describe an intuitive awareness of being.
It's a state that exists as patterns of nerve firing, and those nerves end at our skin.
They are not claiming sole ownership of that being. Sometimes you non-dual guys are so word oriented, you seem to believe that if you can express an idea in a clear and concise way, you believe that is the same as having realized it.
No. But because you're trying to talk about something that you can't talk about, you spend a lot of time attempting to talk about it as precisely as you are able.
I wish both you and Bobby well.
Thanks, Facedog, you too!
Post a Comment
<< Home