The phenomena of judging a guru by its cover (our own ideals). Osho as an example

[Skanzi]

I'd like to dive into an interesting topic here. The topic is about how our conceptualization of what a (spiritual) teacher should be and —in particular— act like, can be a great obstacle towards our spiritual potential.

Let's take Osho by example. I must admit, I have invested a large amount of time into reading and digesting his teachings, so certainly there is the danger of instead of coming from an unbiased, objective viewpoint about the matter, there is the danger that I'm simply arguing to defend him, which I'm trying to avoid at all costs. That's why I want to start off with the statement: Even though I have invested so much energy into digesting his teachings and identifying myself as "a student of Osho". and having seen him as holy and infallible for some time, I do admit that the possibility now exists in my mind that he indeed strayed off the path, got too obsessed with his image and materialism, with all his Rolls royces. But note, I say POSSIBILITY. Because there are some very valid counterarguments, which I'm going to get into right now.

Now what first has to be understood is that even the most enlightened people that ever existed can have blindspots, misinterpretations and delusions. That's why I always want to stress that you don't seek the most perfect teacher per se, but just go with a teacher or teaching you generally like, or even if it's the subject he/she is currently talking about, and learn what you ought to be useful or applicable for you at that time, and you still can discard (or just ignore; to not consider something) subjects or items that you don't resonate with that much. I think it's very unfortunate when people discard the entire teacher if they disagree with some points of the teaching, or in something that the teacher does. Many people have extraordinary qualities to convey a certain viewpoint, perspective or quality in a certain way, but that doesn't mean that this teacher would be infallible altogether.

I used to always try gather information based on the few teachers I knew I could trust (or trust moreso), and discard any other teacher (or youtube channel, or whatever) that I felt weren't of a very high level of consciousness. I needed to be able to discern whether this teacher could be trusted enough before I could accept his/her teaching. When I wanted to know about a certain esoteric subject, I always used to google "Osho on [insert my subject of interest]", because I felt like I could trust Osho enough that he would give me an insight deep enough that I could be satisfied. Now I do it differently. When I want to know about a certain subject, now I more often just google it or search it on youtube, see the teaching that resonates with me the most at that time out of the list of results, and open myself up for it. And if I notice  start getting bored or my attention starts drifting, or if the information at hand doesn't seem to get to the core, that's when I will probably switch to search information from the teachers I already knew, or just leave it be for that moment. But I'm now open to learn from everybody, and I know that everybody has a certain quality of teaching writing or expressing that is unique, even if the person isn't super "wise" there's still a lot you can learn from that person's teaching. Take both the energetical expression and the information that you like from it and are open to, and discard and ignore the rest. That is my advice. And understand, just because you're open to new input, doesn't mean you will automatically be corrupted or brainwashed by it. To open yourself up and surrender your resistance, doesn't mean you have lost your discerning quality for truth. The difference is that instead of actively judging whether you agree or not with what this person is saying, is that now you are simply listening with no judgement from your conditioning whether it is "right or wrong, correct or incorrect", but that your indicator is now simply whether you are bored or attentive, whether your attention is drifting towards the mind or towards attentive stillness. Attentive stillness, by the way, is not memorizing. Don't think you are not being attentive just because you aren't memorizing. Instead, it is vibing, it is feeling into it. 

And here's where the example of Osho comes in. Osho is probably the most controversial spritual teacher that has ever set foot on this earth. And I exactly love him for that. Not that controversy is necessarily always "good", so to speak, but his way of creating controversy I absolutely love to death. But that can also be personal preference, that I like controversial teachers. Perhaps because we're both Sagittarius, who knows. Controversiality is neither virtuous or sinful in and of itself. 

In case you don't know who Osho is: Osho is a spiritual teacher who spread his work primarily in the 70's and 80's, creating a whole lot of drama and controversy with his extremely direct, provocative and confrontational approach towards people and groups, criticizing them in a manner that got directly to the core of the issue, leaving no room for pampering. Or at least, that's the image that he was known for. Was he always like that absolutely 100% of the time? No. It's not a black and white scenario where you either always or never will have to do that, but he certainly wasn't afraid of it.

He also very often contradicted himself, because he didn't value logical linearity. Speaking in favour of one argument one time, and going directly against it the next day. He was also very anti-traditional, radical and renewing in his approach. Often going diametrically against what people were trying to make of him or their ideas of what a guru should be or act like. This is where most of the criticism and controversy comes. But I can understand it perfectly well.

Take the example of the Rolls Royces. If you don't know, one of the things Osho was known for was having a large collection of 99 Rolls Royces. I often see people, sometimes even very intelligent people and very nuanced thinkers, criticize Osho for his collection of Rolls Royces and his material possessions, and therefore discarding him as an enlightened teachers, because of his "obsession with materalism". 

Either he was obsessed with materialism, or this is in fact a genius move from Osho. You see, him being so anti-tradionalist, so outspokenly opposed to ideas people had attached themselves to of what a guru should be like, his possession of 99 Rolls Royces can be perfectly understood. It can be seen as a joke or a form of criticism against the ideas people have that a guru or enlightened spiritual teacher should have renounced material possessions or at least not be so obsessed with materialism. Osho's criticism against this was that materialism wasn't opposed to spirituality, but in fact they were synergistically interrelated to each other. In fact, if you fight against materialism, try to renounce it, you by the act of fighting it become once again obsessed with it. So with his collection of Rolls royces, his statement is: I am not concerned what image you make of me, I am not concerned about what you think of materialism; I am showing you that spirituality and materialism are in fact perfectly compatible, and even supportive to one another.

Now you could say: Well maybe his attempt to try to create a synergy between spirituality and materialism was just a lousy excuse for him to be indulging in greed and attention, so it would make it seem okay for him to do so.

Well... Maybe you're right. Or maybe you're not. Who knows. Like I said, on an intellectual level everything that Osho did can either be praised or rejected. It all depends on the perspective. Maybe he was in fact a very intelligent con-artist, having all these intelligent logical arguments and systems set up to safeguard his greed and need for attention and power. But here I'm simply trying to convey the perspective to be open-minded about that whatever he did was neither an argument in favour or against his 'enlightenedness'.

But for myself, there's one thing I do know. And that is that he was, and still is more intelligent than me. Where do you think I learned to argue and write like this from? Where do you think I learned this capacity for very nuanced thinking and adhering paradoxical truths come from? It was for a big part from Osho. So whether he is enlightened or not, he was absolutely more intelligent and affluent than me, which in itself is already reason enough to learn from him. Remember that I said that you don't have to agree with the teacher to agree with the teaching. Remember?

But for me that wasn't even the case. I just loved not only his words or actions, however contradictory or paradoxical it sometimes would be, but also just who he was, his entire personality and being. And one thing that also stood out to me was his presence, the stillness in which he moved and acted. Maybe that's the thing that most impressed me: that he never wavered and seemed to get off-balance or intimidated by anything at all, always perfectly grounded.

We have to get rid of this idea of how an enlightened being is supposed to be and act like. The reality is: who are we to judge? Are we enlightened? Are we awakened? Are we of a higher degree of intelligence and consciousness then the ones we are judging? Don't delude yourself in this! We can think that someone enlightened is supposed to be like Eckhart Tolle, being very peaceful, relaxed and soothing, and that someone who is in many ways quite opposite to the energy that someone like Eckhart Tolle embodies is completely deluded and full of lust for power and greed. but does that have to be so? Is the expression of an awakened being universally one of a soothing, calming human being? Is a awakened master not able to be provocative in nature? How would we know? You have the archetype of a gautama buddha, someone who is soothing and compassionate, and the archetype of a Bodhidarma, someone who is fierce and provocative. My guess is that both are simply playing their role in existence. You have those who have a primarly feminine expression of awakening, and those who have primarily masculine expression of awakening. In fact, my feeling is that if we didn't have the Osho's or Bodhidharma's, something would be missing. You have the ones who tempt and persuade you carefully to look in the mirror, being careful that not too much egoic reaction is provoked at once, and you have those who basically throw the mirror in your face. And to my understanding, that is exactly how it should be. And perhaps there are also expressions of awakened beings that are neither outspokenly feminine or masculine. And also, I don't think every awakened being has to be a teacher. I feel like you can also have awakened beings working as artists, or as management in companies, or as CEO's, or as farmers, or whatever have you.

So this essay is meant to be an illustrations that you're not supposed to judge a book by it's cover. What appears to be the case on the outside is not necessarily a representative of the quality of consciousness that drives the surface-expression. For someone who is unconscious, for someone who doesn't have an integrated and developed consciousness, is more apparent. Then what appears to be greedy behaviour is in fact most of the time an indication that this person has a lot of greed within. But with someone who is at a very elevated level of consciousness, things may be very different from what they appear to be. In that case, someone who appears to be longing for power may actually have completely selfless interests and only gets himself in a position in power as to selflessly serve humanity.

So based on this, who do we choose to follow? What guru or teacher do we adhere to? Well, if we know that interpretations and ideas of what a teacher should be like can be entirely deceptive, the best thing we can do is to see if we can connect to a guru or teacher by opening ourselves up, by surrendering our resistance and simply allowing energy to flow. Then, instead of using mental guidelines as a basis to choose from whom to learn, we now become open to the direct transfer of silence itself without mind interfering it. Look for that: whether a silence, a stillness, an attentiveness starts arising in you. Do you feel more peaceful and connected when this person speaks? Does he or she radiate something that you can't really define what it is, but you can feel it's there? Search for a certain connection, not that this person can merely supply you with the right kind of knowledge; that would be my advice.

But note: This connection starts with you dropping your ideas of whether or not it fits your conditioned idealogy. You have to work on yourself first to become available. You are the primary factor, not the teacher. Remember that. It is possible that the teacher can be very deluded, still deeply entrenched in maya, in illusion, and yet become awakened yourself simply by your capacity to surrender your resistance to him/her. So focus on dissolving your own resistance first and foremost. And if you can't find a teacher whom you will fall into silence with —whether you or the teacher is the primary factor— then simply seek out a teacher that doesn't bore you. Once again, this also depends on you as well.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Skanzi

[Skanzi]

If you want me to give you a few suggestions for teachers, here are some. Not all of them are gurus, by the way, but all of them have certainly impressed me: Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti (love this one right now), Teal swan, Elliot hulse, RSDTyler/rsdfreetour, Ozen rajneesh, Sadhguru, Vishwananda, Osho

[Guest Quanty]

None impressed me after my first awakening, not Even Gautama Siddhartha, nor Jesus, nor any modern guru, i see and feel them as brothers.  

I fact, I was an atheist, I rejected every spiritual or supernatural after I left Christianity. Only after my first awakenings, I started to read what language other human beings give to what is happening to me. 

Proud to say that Breath is the only Master and link with the Dragon. Other teachings and human beings are not fit to teach me nothing. Search as much as you want, nothing surpasses your own interior. 

[Guest Quanty]

What we have in society is a standardly accepted enlightenment. Enlightenment is infinite cannot be measured, cannot be pointed at, cannot even be associated with good deeds or good morals. Enlightenment is the liberation of anything humanity invented. Is pure raw being without morals nor prejudice. No good, no bad. One decides how it is and the infinite discovery of own's potential even goes into immortality in the flesh. What society taught about Enlightenment is just a limited light side of being. Let's see if Leo finally awakens and starts with teaching more than concepts. Being surpasses concepts.