Gurus

We want saints and gurus and leaders and heroes because we are lazy. We think they have done all the work, and all that we have to do is just to follow them. You know, when you follow somebody, you’re not only destroying yourself, but the other whom you follow.” –Krishnamurti

The usual reason for following a guru is because the guru has answers that you didn’t have. So, instead of following that guru, you should ask yourself the question “Why didn’t I come up with those answers?”. The answer to that question highlights the path to follow. Take whatever answers and tools available, but the most important quest is to figure out how you can answer your own questions.

My 2 cents.

76 thoughts on “Gurus

  1. Never understood completely why many Europeans are so fascinated of India and all this guru&krishna spiritual area. I’ve met a Swedish lady who spent 20 years in India. Everything fine, she found her guru, but she complained that every single day has to drink bottled water, because of the lack of hygiene all over India. Is there any boundary between spirituality and civilization?

  2. Yes, and I cannot get any answers until I question myself, and then figure-figure (alter-alter) or try to discover (create and perceive) something I didn’t know. What is there to know?

      1. I think it’s also lazy survival. Survival=persistence. To have it you must create time –keep creating it. Or else, you must lie, to keep creating it ‘subconsciously’.

        1. I also think Hinduism is a feast of implants –mostly the pre OT stuff. that’s why it survives so well 😛

      2. And now I say ‘Fuck it’. Fuck yesterday’s postulate ( a thought made in the THEN- NOW)…a clear example how a thought can be a ‘guru’ if one listens to it. So I am not listening to it and I am writing. (Haha…didn’t Ron say that any postulate is aberrative, except for prime postulate – that is to BE?).

        Dear Krishnamurti! I am NOT your follower! I listened to YOU on the Net many times, here is my response to what you said:
        ‘We want saints and gurus…….because we are lazy. We think….we have to…. follow them.’ Yes, yes! The VERY first ‘guru’ is THOUGHT if we follow it, if we believe in it.
        You were a genius….I love your talks on desire, fear…actually all….thank you for talking in the videos.

        Geir
        I like what you say : ……or the d(r)ive for truth. There is no figuring about swimming when one is already in the water.
        By the way, you are in good company with Krishnamurti….and he with you.

  3. The movie Kumare really pissed me off.

    When I first saw this movie, I thought “here was a guy who worked very hard and did everything he could to gain the trust of people, just so he could make fools of them for trusting him.”

    Then I got into a conversation with a woman who told me about transference and counter-transference. Basically, what I learned was that, as a guru, when you create a cult, the cult creates you, too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference#Transference_and_countertransference_during_psychotherapy

    Now I think Kumare is a brilliant movie. It gets its point across in probably the most effective way possible – if you keep thinking about it.

    Alanzo

  4. Here’s one of the viewer comments about the film Kumare. Posted on amazon.com:

    “Regardless of the filmmaker’s motives, which I’m sure were complex based on his own life experience, and viewpoint as an artist and truth-seeker himself, my take-away was that the positive experience of the participants was no less authentic because their teacher was a ‘big faker,’ and his method was made up. All of our rituals and beliefs are made up anyway, and the only real reality is that elusive place beyond language and identity we all know is there inside us, and leaves us at some level feeling like something is missing in our lives if we don’t connect with it regularly…Seems like some of the participants found that place of inner truth through Kumare, so does that mean he was a real teacher despite himself, or that the students were their own gurus, as he was insisting? I think it’s a bit of both.” (posted by Anja)

    1. Yes, this part of it is very interesting.

      We invest a sacred part of ourselves into what we designate as sacred.

      What we designate as sacred may be a complete deception, designed to trap us.

      1. Al, I liked this part:

        “Seems like some of the participants found that place of inner truth through Kumare, so does that mean he was a real teacher despite himself, or that the students were their own gurus, as he was insisting? I think it’s a bit of both.”

        “It’s a bit of both” is how I see Scientology. 😉

  5. “We want saints and gurus and leaders and heroes because we are lazy.”

    He needs to speak for himself, otherwise he is just playing the guru game himself.

    As far as I am concerned, he played it to the nth degree. Had he stated it in terms of HE wants a guru because HE am lazy, then perhaps this could be a true statement. Saying it for me and for others in this absolutist statement is pure arrogance and false in many, many instances.

    For me, gurus and saints bring about a lot of WORK as I examine deeply held beliefs, learn new practices and information, extend my paradigms, and work through inevitable changes, shifts, and uncomfortable states of mind, physiology and biochemistry.

    Example: My hero is Jimmy Page. I would love to be able to play like Jimmy. I do learn by emulating him. My fingers HURT from just learning a few of his licks.

    Example: I admire Ghandi as a leader, he is brilliant and I am not lazy following him, I am backing up an intelligent individual who can and does motivate others. I do learn from emulating him, I learn valuable and useful ways of being and doing. This is not lazy. This is intelligent.

    As far as enlightenment goes, who is to say I am or am not enlightened. Maybe I am and I just do not realize it, and simply am not arrogant enough to crow it from the rooftops.

    I suppose you could say that I am just restating what he said anyway, but I am troubled by his disrespectful dismissal of the bona fide and extremely valuable behavior of people seeking learn from one another through observation, emulation, imitation, passing on knowledge. Cripes, this man spoke and wrote TOMES!

  6. Maria
    ‘For me, gurus and saints bring about a lot of WORK as I examine deeply held beliefs……’ so one becomes ‘diligent’…
    That’s the whole point! As long as you think somebody is a guru and the method he/she offers is going to ‘lead’ you to ‘enlightenment’, you will be a ‘follower’ and
    you will do a lot of ‘work’….maybe for a loooooooooong time. At a point you may ‘realize’ that it is YOU, who is doing that work….wow! it’s ME! Hm…then, you can ask
    this question: Who is this ME? And you will not find an entity called ‘me’…this point is quite liberating….it is the first time of true BEING…not being ‘this or that’, just being, without any sense of a self/person/identity. Life, without an I, gets REALIZED…awakens…there is awareness, flow of love, pure energy in the body…in
    short. There can still be some ‘work’ after that without any ‘self’ involved….

    ‘when you follow somebody, you not only destroy yourself but the other you follow’
    Why?
    Life is WHOLE. That’s the truth. Each, seemingly separate (by the body and the ‘ I ‘ concept) being is the WHOLE. When ‘ I ‘ start to play the role of a ‘student’ and project a ‘teacher/guru’ to follow AND the other ‘person’ is not yet ‘enlightened’ (without self, without an ego) THEN I will add to the other person’s ‘ego’, which may result in actions by which the person may eventually ‘destroy’ his/her life….(actually his/her remained ‘ego’ will be the ‘destructor’ – to finally experience Life as whole).
    There is another interesting aspect – one, who is really ‘enlightened’ , ‘whole’ and starts to ‘teach’, speak, stand before ‘others’ (like some living enlightened beings).
    They know from the start, that the ‘teaching’ part is a Failure….they say, they use ‘pointers’…they know they will get a lot of ‘mind-projections-criticisms-emotional-reactions’ which they ‘handle’ or not…. their true ‘teaching’ is presence/silence/consciousness…whatever name.
    There is an interesting video by Krishnamurti with a ‘diligent’ !!! student about the core of life.
    Google Krishnamurti on-line. video, Brockwood Park 1982. Conversation with Pupul
    Jayakar – uncovering the source. In it, in the 6 or 7 part, the ‘egg’ is cracked…quite
    fascinating to see it happening. If you like.

    1. Marianne, here’s a definition of “thetan” that I found online in the glossary of an older edition of Creation of Human Ability:

      “THETAN
      The energy and space-production unit for the body. A Static with the ability to consider, postulate, and have opinions, that has, through postulates and considerations, developed a differentiation from the Static, theta. The thetan is the ‘I’, the individual, that force, not a part of the physical universe, which is directing the organism.”

      Also in that edition is this definition of “beingness”:

      “Beingness is essentially an identification of self with an object.”

      The above definition of “thetan” makes it seem possible, to me, that there can be an inidividual self (a thetan) which would have no identification with anything in the physical universe (i.e. no identification with an object) – which would be the same as saying no ego – and yet exists as an individual entity “through postulates and considerations” and thus (as per the definition) is differentiated from “theta”. “Theta” is defined as follows in that same glossary:

      “THETA
      The only known Static. (See STATIC.)”

      “STATIC
      A Static has no mass, no motion, no wave-length, and no position in space or time, no
      meaning, and no mobility. While a Static may have qualities, it has no quantities.”

      All of the above seems to resolve the question of “thetan or no thetan”. The problem in discussions about it may due to different uses of the word “self” – i.e. it is sometimes used in the sense of “beingness” as defined above, or with the meaning of “thetan”, which has no physical universe beingness.

      What do you think about this?

      1. That is an excellent definition (the first one). To me it is then logical that static has no identity and no compartmentation. There would not be separate “statics” as that introduces a property to static that makes it something else. The moment static (pure potential) is realized, identification occurs through postulates, considerations and opinions.

        1. I know – I was astounded when I saw that definition. But as for “compartmentation”, isn’t that answered by the part of the definition stipulating “through postulates and considerations”? Also, see what you think of this idea:

          “The concept of infinite mind is not new, but it has always been assigned to another beingness than self. The preclear will be found to be intensely aberrated who has sworn allegiance to some infinite beingness and has then agreed that all space belonged to that beingness, and that the rights of creation and energy belonged to that beingness and did not belong to self. This is a handy and, to the very badly aberrated, acceptable method of denying any responsibility for anything. It is also the shortest route toward I AM NOT. Infinite mind is individualistic. All mankind does not depend upon or share a portion of the infinite mind. On the contrary, the highest individualism attainable is the individualism of the infinite mind. It was beyond the power and grasp of the intellect applying itself to the field of philosophy, to conceive a multiplicity of infinite minds, and these commentators had agreed sufficiently with the MEST universe to conceive that the only space was the MEST universe space and they could not understand that this was an illusion, and that the existence of space does not depend upon existing space. Just as there can be an “infinity” of ideas, so can there be an “infinity” of “infinities” of space. Two beings theoretically, each with an infinite mind, and each capable of the production of an infinity of space, could yet co-produce sufficient space to communicate with each other. This may be difficult to conceive until one has attained a level of the tone-scale sufficient for an expansive viewing of his potentialities, at which moment it becomes simplicity itself.” (Scn 8-8008)

          1. Static is above identity or individuality. Static is above thought, above postulates, above opinion, above consideration. The moment you have a consideration, you no longer have static.

            1. Static isn’t above thought if thought itself is a static. Here’s LRH’s idea to consider:

              “Thought is definitely comparable to nothing in the universe of matter, energy, space or time, having no wave length, weight, mass or speed and being, therefore, a zero which is an infinity or, in short, a true static. Thought, thinking and life itself are of the same order of being. Demonstrably they have no wave length, therefore contain neither time nor space. Thought only appears to have time because in it is recorded physical universe time. There is obviously an ‘action’ in thought but, as obviously, it is not action in this universe.“ (Handbook for Pre-Clears)

            2. I disagree with that. Thought is an actuality. It has motion. I can observe that. It even registers on an e-meter.

            3. “I disagree with that. Thought is an actuality. It has motion. I can observe that. It even registers on an e-meter.”

              Now we’re getting into the area that 2ndxmr wrote a post about recently, regarding his theory that there is a probabilistic state of thought – a zero/static – which can condense into actual energy. The condensation idea is expressed by LRH in terms of the Static having facsimiles “impressed” upon it and those facsimiles become created in energy form by either environmental restimulation or by the being’s attention units being directed to them.

            4. Also, a Static is not a nothingness EXCEPT in relation to physical universe quantities. Here’s one definition from the Tech Dict:

              6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)

            5. Marildi; You are pointing to interesting inconsistencies in the basics of Scientology here. Read thi sentence over carefully again and tell me what you understand from it:

              “A Static with the ability to consider, postulate, and have opinions, that has, through postulates and considerations, developed a differentiation from the Static, theta.”

            6. My comment on conceiving an infinity of infinities is in relation to the 8-8008 quote.

            7. Awesome, that’s what I think too –that beings are like incarnations of infinity. So, in a sense one could say ‘infinities’. Basically, 7D (seventh dynamic)is 8D plus the consideration “I am” and whatever else considerations they may be creating. So, 8D isn’t senior to 7D, nor some 7D is senior to another 7D.

            8. M: Also, a Static is not a nothingness EXCEPT in relation to physical universe quantities. Here’s one definition from the Tech Dict:

              S: I’m pointing attention to the factors. I think before the decision ‘to be’, it’s pute static –that is potential to be.

            9. *not that after the decision to be, static ceases to be static. But there is a decision added.

              By the way, how many decisions to be can potential-to-be make? 😛

            10. Got this reply to Spyros in the wrong place. Here it is again (hopefully in the right place):

              Currently, I see it that way too. There’s a decision (a postulate) to be but that resultant beingness is still a static.

              “By the way, how many decisions to be can potential-to-be make?”

              An infinity.

              Here’s one for you, you little devil:

              “If you had two thetans standing on the same head of the pin looking at the same room, you’ve got two different viewpoints of that room. You actually see two different rooms. There are as many MEST universes as there are people, as there are animals—just as many.” (LRH)

            11. Yes yes, I think the 1st individuality is the 7th dynamic (the decision ‘to be’) so there is nothing to be separate from, beforehand.

        2. Right…I was trying to put it into words. There is no ‘unit’, there has never been a ‘separation’. Even considerations don’t have the power to do that…

          1. Life is not only infinite ‘mind’….the ‘ I ‘ am ‘not’ means, in fact, the truth of no ‘ I ‘ and, by one perception, one boundless ‘being’-ness with one ‘dynamics’ – one ‘Flow’…there are different awareness/perception no-levels….kind of ‘shifts’ to view ‘life’. Very liberating ‘shifts’.

            1. Geir, if you reveal the bottom line of ‘static’, ‘potential’, what will happen to the ‘tomorrow’…I’d rather go to sleep now.. as long as it lasts…HaHa…

      2. Nice topic 🙂

        I think static can both be 8th and 7th as well as all dynamics (effect). But it doesn’t cease to be static (cause). So perceiving as static brings about as-isness. If a person viewed like that, he wouldn’t need to run over and over through an incident. Actually, there wouldn’t be any incident at all, there, ‘reactively’. As, deep down, it is all created by static.

        The infinite mind, the eternal MEST, the one God being and it’s compartments, are mockeries of static, as it isn’t a unit, nor units, but can create that. 8th dynamic is nothing with (infinite) potential for (to create) something.

        It’s currently my opinion… 🙂

    2. You missed the point.

      He said — because we are lazy..

      Not true.

      Right or wrong, stupid or enlightened, it takes diligence to learn from or follow another – lazy people do not learn and they cannot follow..

      I intensely dislike false platitudes, especially when the individual making the false platitude is busily dismissing everyone else as lazy.

      More of the same old — I am hot and you are not. Me — I am tired of sanctimonious righteousness in the name of enlightenment.

      And Marianne, do you seriously think you can tell me how to become enlightened on this blog — telling me what to do, how to do it and what not to do is exactly what Krishnamurti is talking about. I suppose I should take the lazy mans way to enlightenment and just follow your sage advice — then again, I have not found this to be particularly fruitful.

      There is this notion that there is this ONE and ONLY, SOLE, UNIQUE, ABSOLUTE. state called enlightenment. I am not so sure that is true at all. In fact, I have come to completely doubt it.

      1. Maria, I personally have learned a lot from Marianne. She’s pointed me in directions that I have greater awareness of now. It might sound like it at times, but I don’t think she’s trying to tell anybody what to do – she just wants to share her insights with others, no different from many other posters. I see it as a true caring on her part. That’s my take.

      2. Maria
        ‘do you seriously think that you can tell me how to become enlightened on this blog’
        No, Maria. When I was writing, I had no intention of any kind – that you become anything, or change you in any way. Reading again what I wrote, I see that it can be read like that. I have learnt from your answer – thank you for that!

        1. Marianne

          And I must apologize to you — I really had no irritation towards you at all, was actually using what you said to make my point that people do offer information to others when they feel they have progressed in some area — it is a good flow, and not a destructive flow at all to do so. That you offered me information and ideas is a good thing, not a bad thing. That I have given what you say thought or even tried it out is not laziness on my part, it is a willingness to accept your gift.

          Of course all of these impulses can be perverted, so perhaps the real element that is being protested is perversion.

          1. Maria
            ‘ I really had no irritation towards you’ – I know! Your flow was fluid, pure theta. Also,
            you did exactly the right thing to do – answered my communication. Showed a mirror! With that, lots of ‘cognitions, insights’ of technical kind started to pour down…they have evaporated since then, kind of knowingness remained. THANK YOU !

  7. I am putting here a story as an example for the power of just being and acting without consideration.
    A couple of years ago I enjoyed working on the ‘disappearance of considerations’. I had a lot…..
    Some months ago I met an ‘enlightened’ one. He was giving a ‘talk’ where there were other people. I had never seen him before. After a while, I got thirsty. While he
    was speaking, I stood up and went to the back of the room to drink. When I turned back, I saw him smiling. At the same time I saw different expressions on some faces.
    I drank, went back, sat down. I looked at him. That was the instant I ‘knew’ there was no difference between ‘him’ and ‘me’. I did not see him as a ‘master’, an ‘enlightened’, whatever. I asked two or three questions. I got a ‘Kill Bill’, that is ‘bulding down’ the ‘ego’ non-answers. A little later I realized, what I was doing was ‘zen’. I was thirsty, I drank. There was another time when I met him again. He talked a litle about the ‘master’ concept, that when one has it, what it means. Or its absence.
    I can still find considerations-concepts coming and going….emotion-energies too. The latter is the one whose dissolution produces a change on the Dynamics…so there is work….without an ‘I ‘……

  8. Thought peeps here might be interested in this.

    I got it from Brian Greene’s Facebook page:

    http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/whispering_mind

    The Whispering Mind
    Science Event
    Date
    Thu May 30, 2013 8:00pm EDT — Thu May 30, 2013 9:30pm EDT

    About
    Featuring: Terry Moran, Mélanie Boly, Christof Koch, Colin McGinn, Nicholas Schiff It’s an old question: what is consciousness? Today, sophisticated brain imaging technologies, clinical studies, as well as the newfound ability to listen to the whisper of even an individual nerve cell, are bringing scientists closer than ever to the neurobiological basis of consciousness. Join some of the world’s leading researchers who are primed to determine if Homo sapiens are the only conscious species, if consciousness lives only within our brain or also outside of it, and ultimately, the fundamental biochemical processes underlying the life of the mind.

    That’s right – actual scientists discussing consciousness – live-streamed on the inner-nayet TONIGHT!

    Special programming note: Scientologists are NOT ALLOWED to watch this event. They will start to feel wheezy, become dizzy, then their legs will get wobbly, and their heads will explode – all from the cognitive dissonance they will experience from so much contrary factual information hitting their beliefs – that they do not even know are beliefs!

    So again, SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH THIS EVENT.

    Over.

    Alanzo

  9. Currently, I see it that way too. There’s a decision (a postulate) to be but that resultant beingness is still a static.

    “By the way, how many decisions to be can potential-to-be make?”

    An infinity. 😛

    Here’s one for you, you little devil:

    “If you had two thetans standing on the same head of the pin looking at the same room, you’ve got two different viewpoints of that room. You actually see two different rooms. There are as many MEST universes as there are people, as there are animals—just as many.”

    1. Yes, I agree with both your points. The reason why one can have a hard time to as-is MEST objects is that it is created by many. Each one creates it in his universe, and although it appears as one universe, it isn’t. It’s a Matrix dreamed by many. So it isn’t the same for all. I guess if it was the same for all it would be perfectly duplicated, thus as-ised. Each being has a separate viewpoint of MEST.

      1. *this doesn’t mean one can’t as-is MEST for ‘himself’, as a being. I meant to as-is MEST for everyone…you know have a wall disappear for all etc

        1. *in other words there isn’t such a thing as (one) reality. If there was, we would all agree 😛

            1. 😉

              I just figured this out: When there is reality (agreement) there is duplication (and thus as-isness). How ironic to call MEST ‘reality’ while it is never really fully duplicated. If it is seen as one universe (as well as other considerations about it), it is grossly MISduplicated. It is the total opposite. MEST is unreality, yet called reality 😛

      2. Forgot to say, that quote was from the 5th American ACC.

        Now I have to get back to work! I’ll check back with the little devil and “the Geir” tomorrow. 🙂

        1. LOL Marildi –for your being typical at quoting exact quotes showing source etc. I can’t remember it all myself. I have just translated them in my individualistic language 😛

          1. Yes, I think it’s better to give the exact quote and reference. When someone writes “LRH says such and such”, without giving an exact quote and reference, how do we know LRH said that? Or that their interpretation of what he said is correct, if we don’t see the actual quote?

            But as for your “individualistic language”, I would say that most of the time your “translations” of LRH show a good conceptual understanding. Sometimes I don’t duplicate what you’re saying, but that might just be me. (But it’s probably you :P)

            1. Yes, if I knew where I’ve taken all data from, I would give exact quotes. But often I don’t claim to quote SCN –just my know-about, taken from SCN, Spiritologie, others, evaluations, this that…

        1. I think it is the MEST that one creates in his universe that get’s as-ised or not. I assume a being can as-is itself when it no longer is.

        2. Sorry, I was late to grasp what you meant (a matter of words). Yes, I think too ‘he’ as-ises ‘him’self, just not as a unit-being. I think ultimately self is everything, as it all derives from potential to be.

    2. So you disagre with the definition you quoted and that I requoted? It says that a thetan is separated from static by it’s considerations. I.E. considerations creates the separation, the distinction between static (pure potential) and a thetan (an actuality, an identity).

      1. No, the definition still makes sense to me. I understand it as saying a THETAN is “a” Static that, through postulates and considerations, has developed a differentiation from the Static known as THETA. Here it is again:

        “THETAN: The energy and space-production unit for the body. A Static with the ability to consider, postulate, and have opinions, that has, through postulates and considerations, developed a differentiation from the Static, theta. The thetan is the ‘I’, the individual, that force, not a part of the physical universe, which is directing the organism.”

        Note: I understand the comma after Static (“…Static, theta”) to be an appositive comma. A similar example would be: “Geir lives in Norway’s capital, Oslo.” http://eslbee.com/appositives.htm

        Btw, later I saw that at the end of that glossary it says “By A.H.” So I suppose it may or may not have been an LRH definition. But either way, it’s still an interesting starting point for this discussion topic.

          1. I would say that what makes them not the same as that they have assumed different viewpoints (points from which to view) and have had experiences unique to each of them.

            Let me ask you a question too. In running past lives, did you feel there was a continuity of “you” in some sense?

            1. I thought so. What I am talking about is beyond and above the decision “to BE” as reflected in the Factors. Backtrack the Factors all the way to #1 and you get ‘no identity’, ‘no differentiation’, or just “static” (as pointed to in the definition you provided).

            2. Okay, and it would seem that at #2, with “the decision TO BE” is where the postulate is made that differentiates a thetan from theta.

              Please answer my question too, the one about past lives. I’m not just trying to make that definition right (which might not even have been LRH’s). I’m interested in a discussion about it because I haven’t got certainty on this subject myself yet.

            3. M: “Okay, and it would seem that at #2, with “the decision TO BE” is where the postulate is made that differentiates a thetan from theta.”

              Exactly. Btw; This is also covered in my article, “On Will”.

              M: “Let me ask you a question too. In running past lives, did you feel there was a continuity of “you” in some sense?”

              Yes. As playing of any game comes under “the decision To Be”.

          2. “Tell me this; what differentiates one static from another. What makes them not the same?”

            I view this as unknowable. But for the sake of speculation, perhaps the difference is in how, or as what, one emerges into Being, from Native State? Native State is Native State, one looks much like another. There is no differentiation until there is a differentiation. (Chris ought to like that.) Static as such is not quantifiable, so why talk about one or many? Those categories do not apply.

            In the physical universe, what is the difference between undifferentiated embryonic cells and differentiated specialized cells?

            Really aren’t we talking about some sort of implicate order?

            What differentiates one sleeping person from another? They appear much the same, one to another. Yet when they wake up they may be very different. So are they one or many?

            The answers you get depend on how you frame the questions. That’s why I don’t think this is worth a lot of discussion. Can a tongue taste itself? Can an eye see itself? Can an ear hear itself? Can an invisible source see itself, know itself?

            1. In SCN some (many) have the concept that somehow native state and OT stuff can be somewhat ‘regained’. But did native state, potential to be, 8D, ever ceased to be itself, just because of a decision ‘to be’?

            2. One is preclear, then ‘becomes’ Clear, then ‘becomes’ OT, then he dies 😛 That’s pretty much bull…

              To become is a matter of identity, and it is case, as it seems to me that the first case is an identity.

            3. Valkov
              Like what you write. ‘I view this as unknowable’. Yes, unknowable – which is not knowable by the mind, by thought, by figuring out. Yet, when we talk, even on this blog through vias, the distance, the difference can disappear. There is something, which cannot be put into words…like when you put the video: What if god was one of us here…and many more instances. As if somehow there was the same source.
              I find it beautiful.

  10. Oh that video was fun in it’s apparent truth. Reminds me of my mate and I first realization of guru’s. When someone introduced us to a spiritual path with a teacher or guru and we said hell, no more, as knew Hubbard had been that to us. We did join the group and read books that were interesting and really cleared up religion and the bible better than any understanding before. But tho we did the bows etc, we thought of him only as a teacher for what we were interested in leaning. It was nice to have a group but we always remained detached from it. The meditation was helpful as such like Spyros says, sit and let it happen or whatever he said. Sorry I’m still laughing from that funny vid.
    I think it’s fun to call people guru’s, with no disrespect mind you, only those I call put that title on, know what I mean and understand. Others who take it seriously I don’t worry about anyway. Like you are your own best friend? Well in my book you are your own best guru, growing, learning from the life you surround yourself with. 🙂
    Ok, now I’ll read what others say, who’ll probably say it better technically or more propah.

  11. I also think of Osho as an example of guru, and I see potentially oshos everywhere. It’s like the guru thing is a tool or toy too in the reach of a goal. So, somebody could be a guru to somebody, and have gurus as well. I see Krisnamurti making a point about responsability in there.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s