what about cults?

[mossness]

I'm new to this whole psychedelic/mystical thing, I'm more of a science/rationality kinda guy. But I'm intrigued by Daniel's book and I'm curious about some of the ideas posted on these message boards. Yesterday, as I was researching Blavatsky, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky on the web, I kept running into anti-cult websites (Cults and Religion (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb), American Family Foundation (http://www.csj.org)) and then last night I read an article in this week's New Yorker (synchronistically?) about cult debunkers (Joe Nickell and SCICOP (http://www.csicop.org)).

Given some of the debates on these boards recently about science vs. mysticism, I'm wondering what folks think about cults and their debunkers? If you chuck rational thought, how do you weed out the nutty, fraudulent claims of some psychics and shamans from the "real thing"? How can we formulate theories of other dimensions and intelligences without falling prey to specious pranks?

I'm especially worried about cults that lead to Jonestowns and Heaven's Gates. I just finished Terrance McKenna's True Hallucinations. Fortunately he had a sense of humor about his ideas of time and the I Ching and he wasn't too worried if they were really true or not, but I thought his idea about a 2012 "concrescence" kind of disturbing. He expressed more sympathy for religious apocalyptic visions than for scientific big bang theories and I could see that with a little more fortitude he could easily lead his followers into some sort of apocalyptic experience. Not my cup of tea.

[sidecross]

From my point of view cults are somewhat like fractals. The most dangerous of cults practice nationalism, and probably the most dangerous cult today is The United States of America.

"…but I thought his idea about a 2012 "concrescence" kind of disturbing. He expressed more sympathy for religious apocalyptic visions than for scientific big bang theories…"

The latest findings from the science of the big bang theory could be thought to be as disturbing as any apocalyptic vision. In brief, latest finding have shown the universe is expanding more rapidly then ever expected. The conclusion is literally and figuratively as dark and menacing as any apocalyptic vision.

[Charlie]

Funny you mention cults...I'm trying to decide if the Santo Daime Religion, at least locally here in Spain, is really just a cult.
I am interested in taking Ayahuasca, but wish to do so under the care of a shaman. However, I cannot afford to fly to Peru.
Since these ayahuasca embibers are within my logistical reach, I thought perhaps I could join them for a ceremony. After speaking with a friend who had experience with this group, I learned that they wear black robes, have a rank-and-file power structure (with ranks sewn onto their robes) and are obsessed with the religion, not wishing to speak of anything else.
Think I'll pass...

[katachthonios]

Cults are tricky, usually because their definition isn't so clear, and many things, from Satanism to Thelema to Heaven's Gate have been called cults. Seems to me a useful definition of "cult" is when you get charged dollars for "exclusive access" to mysteries, especially when offered by a single leader whose experience you are not necessarily meant to replicate (Scientology comes to mind).

Of course, useful knowledge could be proffered and gotten from such organizations (like Scientology); in this case, perhaps it would be useful to use Crowley's approach to mysticism & the occult, which was to use personal experience as the ultimate standard of spiritual validity; if you can recreate someone else's results using their methods (eg Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises, or Patanjali's Raja Yoga) that counts for something (although, because of a direct causal relationship, not because of some monolithic self-absorbing infinitely regressive singularity of mystic experience). The psychedelic experience seems to create a lot of the latter, and joining a group, I would think, would just be a distraction. At least in regards to the Santo Daime in Spain, I would say they don't sound much like shamans, so you probably guessed right, and would do better to experiment on your own.

[Anita]

Now why in the world would anyone chuck rational thought?Or intuitive thought?Once one reclaims ones freedom,one have to use every "tool"at ones disposal.It is all about cooperative thought process.I would say about cults,that anyone or any dogma dictating a set of beliefs rather than teaching is suspect.The universe,or infinity,is very very big.Quite beyond any single beings comprehension.Is it not common sense then that there are "millions and trillions" of individual paths to the "unknowable"?
As for the Santo Daime and your desire to share Ayahuasca,I would recommend prayer.
Take a moment to find your own gut instinct.
Trust your intuition,and test it with research and rational thought.
With best wishes
Anita

[michael heany]

As far as the people at SCICOP and other such organizations, I think one ought to be very skeptical of these skeptics. To my mind many of them are fanatics, as extreme in their way as the type of person who picks up nearest tabloid and believes everything in it. They purport to be clear headed and rational, open-minded; but they are *deeply* commited to the current worldview, and though it is always imperative to remian skeptical, as they advise, one ought not to be too easily swayed by the vehemence of a one-sided argument, which they offer.

I was looking over a book the other day, called "The Limit of Influence", about some people in the past who demonstrated psychokinesis. Has anyone here heard of Daniel Douglas Home? Apparently a very active medium in the 1800's. He was never "caught in the act".

His repetoire included:

(1) Raps, or knocking sounds, heard not just in the table, but in all sides of the room
(2) Object levitations and movements, including the complete levitations of pianos and the complete levitation of tables with several persons on top.
(3) Tables would tilt sharply, although objects on the table would remain stationary. Sometimes the objects would alternatively move and remain in place in response to the sitter's commands
(4) Alteration in the weight of objects .. a table would become either too heavy for one or more persons to tilt or lift, or at least more difficult to move than before
(5) The appearance of lights and luminous phenomena in various parts of the room
Earhtquake effects, odors, hands supple, solid, mobile and warm, often ending near the wrist....

And so on. It seems like stuff a magician would be able to do on a stage, but this guy would do these seances wherever, in people's homes. He'd have people hold his arms and legs to show he wasn't deceiving.

From another book,

"Nathaniel Hawthorne [he sat in on a sitting] recorded all these "soberly attested incredibilities" were so numerous that he forgot most of them, and was amused that his reaction to real life ghosts was boredom: "they are absolutely proved to be sober facts... yet I cannot force my mind to take any interest in them".

I suppose there are ways to remian skeptical here, but for my part skepticism feels like resistance in this case.

[daniel]

Michael writes: "Nathaniel Hawthorne ... was amused that his reaction to real life ghosts was boredom: "they are absolutely proved to be sober facts... yet I cannot force my mind to take any interest in them".

Wonderful quote! Where is it from?

I would give Santo Daime a try, why not? If it seems too culty, then experience it anthropologically.

[michael heany]

The book is "The Occult" by Colin Wilson. Someone had mentioned it on another board.

[chi]

on the subject of cults: one must be really careful. One might not perceive oneself as naive but if you are on a quest to truly seek out others that think beyond the scope of day to day living, it is easy to be hypnotized by a so-called "teacher" who may have the key to taking a leap onward and out...I joined a Gurdjieff group that was supposed to be a serious study school about the Fourth Way. To make a long story short, I experienced rape on a physical and psychological level. The problem with this, or with any teacher that insists that you give up your will and strip yourself of false personality is that it is impossible to logically judge their verity. For example, before Einstein's theory of relativity or even before anyone realized the world was round and not flat, one could argue that a group that spoke of such things was "obviously" not in keeping with an altruistic or life-affirming philosophy. So, if one is to keep an open mind, it is somewhat perplexing how to stay logical with any of this. One could argue with me and say just keep away from anyone who asks that you give up your will or self-identity, but actually, most philosophies speak about giving up the ego and your self-identity to truly experience the "all" the "void" whatever. Or, one could say, you would just "know" that something wasn't right. But, what we "know" is usually way off too. Anyway, this is just a friendly reminder to be careful.

[daniel]

chi writes: "One could argue with me and say just keep away from anyone who asks that you give up your will or self-identity, but actually, most philosophies speak about giving up the ego and your self-identity to truly experience the "all" the "void" whatever."

Well, I would still argue with you. Sadly, many people are looking for an opportunity to give up their will - to a guru or ideology or state. The human will should be regarded as sacrosanct, and any attempt to delude or impell it should be regarded with suspicion.

Not to sound like a broken record, but Steiner is very useful on this subject as well - perhaps this also explains his dislike of Gurdjieff.

[chi]

I read the Steiner book, "How to Know Higher Worlds" at your suggestion, and I agree he has a very straight-forward approach that seems very grounded. I think I will try and attempt some of his exercises on my own. I was a little turned off at the end however, with his talk of guardians and such...that seemed a little far-fetched and sensational to me. But I was turned off by those mushroom beings too--seems like a cartooned version of illumination to me. Perhaps I am straying from the topic but I think it is less that the drug is an actual being but instead that the drug provides a pathway or a curcuit to another dimension, which is perhaps "occupied" by other spirits, which then present themselves by symbolic manifestation.

Here's a reading suggestion to anyone on this message board. Try reading Liz Williams' The Poison Master." It is about a young woman in the future who "plies her trade at alchemical apothecary." She describes how all drugs have spirits attached to them and it is simply a matter of wheter those allied beings were friendly or not. Anyway, this book is reviewed in The Book Review section of the Times today if anyone is interested.

[sidecross]

The issue concerning cults, leaders, and gurus abusing power is not a new problem. The Catholic Church current sex abuse problems in the U.S. is just one of many examples.

There have been some teachers, gurus, and roshis that have given some guidance on this very issue. I remember one Indian guru saying that a guru should be like a stick that you use to tend a fire. After you have gotten the fire arranged you put the stick in the fire. Alan Watts said using a telephone as an analogy said, "once you receive the message, you put the phone down". In some Buddhist views the highest Buddha is like "birds in the sky, they leave no tracks."

The unique part of psychedelics is that each of us pilots our own ship, and no two voyages are ever exactly the same. It does take courage to proceed.

[chi]

Thanks Sidecross for your thoughts on being lone pilots on our voyages. I suppose we all must be warriors and look at our own scars as unique badges of honor.

[steve]

Just got on the list and see no one has posted here in a while. If this goes unread, so be it. Anyway, for what its worth: I think one of the big secrets is to not be overly hasty about getting into the game of judging this or that group a cult. Many groups are cults for one person and not for the next. While without question certain groups push the buttons more than others, intentionally or not, it seems to me more useful to recognize that cult attachments are simply a part of human nature, and to a certain extent in all, or most of us, at least those of us who are actually searching for some higher, non-banal, not immediately perceivable truth about the world(s). The impulse to believe, to give up one’s sense of self and one’s will, derives from the real difficulty of knowing the big things, the consequent deep uncertainty and epistemological angst, and the natural impulse to seek assurance by allying oneself with one who does seem to know. This is not a phenomenon limited to Jonestown or Heavens gate-type groups; indeed it seems indistinguishable from indoctrination into all major religions, and other ideologically oriented groups, where rhetorical persuasion, not experience, is used to transfer belief systems from the group to the individual. At the time of the Heaven’s Gate auto-immolation, I was reading a book about the ancient Roman’s opinions on the early Christians. The commentary from Marcus Aurelius, Pliny, Galen and others about the Christians was almost word for word that of Time magazine, etc about the ‘poor fools’ from Heavens Gate. But the cult impulse occurs to some extent with ANY and all groups it seems to me, even sporting teams fan clubs. This also means it is not precisely evil, but simply something to be aware of. After all, it comes from an honest sub-awareness of how much we don’t know. If the cult-impulse is the acceptance of “knowledge” from outside without any (or only partial) corresponding internal experience, the essential remedy is complete honesty with oneself, and the ability to distinguish what one really knows from what one doesn’t. But real knowing must contain personal experience and not just a repertory of intellectual facts. One needs to distinguish this level of assurance from what one is simply working with as a kind of theory substantiated by a partial smattering of experience, and from what one would like to entertain as possible but without any real experience. Easier said than done. Perhaps some of you recognize the thought of Gurdjieff here. The amazing thing to me is that Gurdjieff’s system - whose emphasis on personal verification, on not accepting anything on the basis of blind faith, ought to be a tremendous preventative medicine against the cult-impulse - can still be used, and has been used, as the philosophical basis of groups which are nevertheless definitely cult-like. Such is the ability of the lower elements of human nature to distort any and all philosophies to their own weak and selfish needs. Apropos of which, I know that at least some of the cult debunking groups out there are themselves cultish. They are simply the militant arm of one belief system (even if it be the atheistic, materialistic one) attacking the belief system of another. All the best to all of you...

Steve

[chi]

In response to:
"Perhaps some of you recognize the thought of Gurdjieff here. The amazing thing to me is that Gurdjieff’s system - whose emphasis on personal verification, on not accepting anything on the basis of blind faith, ought to be a tremendous preventative medicine against the cult-impulse - can still be used..."

Interesting that you cite Gurdjieff as a antidote to the cult mentality: If you read further up on the message board, you will see that it was in a Gurdjieff group that I experienced the very worst at the hands of a so-called teacher of The Fourth Way and Gurdjieff. You should note I am not a gullible person, I rarely go in for untried belief systems without verification. The problem is, and I think Daniel really misses the boat in his reply to me, is that most systems do require (to some degree at least) you to relinquish your ego in order to truly step forward and onward. At that point, one does become vulnerable to the will of another, and there are misguided teachers out there who will use that opportunity as a venue for power. Gurdjieff himself had an unquenchable sex drive and misled many young women into the same situation I experienced. I'm ok as it's been a few years since then, and I have managed to work through that experience. I guess the point here is the voyage of self-discovery is somewhat treacherous, and I now have scars to show for it. I'm still searching however, and still entranced with all the ideas, so I still win in the end. However, be careful.

[dogen]

Hey Chi & Steve: i've only read this thread tonight--in part because you bothered to post to it again. Chi's experience with the Gurdjief group seems to be a universal. A recent book, "Shoes Outside the Door," discusses how the Roshi of the San Francisco Zen Center built this still-large & thriving zen community through donations from wealthy spiritual tourists. In addition to accepting a fancy Beemer, vacations, and other personal goodies, he apparently slept with most of the donors (or their wives) and most of his female students. i've heard and/or read similar stories about charismatic leaders in pretty much every faith.

i think Chi is spot-on about the need to relinquish some measure of ego and even will to penetrate very far into a religion as such. And when a student becomes that open, she becomes vulnerable to sexual coersion and students of whatever gender can be degraded spiritually. Nor do i think this is a phenomenon to which faith-based religions and their "heretical" offshoots are more prone than experientially based religions. i've no doubt that shaman's are just as capable as celebate Catholic priests of taking advantage of their apprentices.

As it happens, i'm a college professor (male) and have heard of many similar cases even in that relatively well-surveilled environment. Let me try this idea out on you: the phenomenon that Chi was a victim of is an intense version of a dynamic inherent in all teacher-student relationships--whether they are religious or secular. The reason for this is that teaching is an act of love and the teacher-student relationship is a love relationship. At the highest levels, teaching is an act of compassion. The teacher, often for little or no compensation, gives a student knowledge, skills, perspective, and practical assistance in attaining that student's heart's desire. It's easy, for both teacher and student, to get confused about the nature of the love that passes between them as they share important, potentially life-altering ideas.

That childhood crush you had on Mr. or Ms. So-and-so wasn't just immaturity; it was your first (and probably least concealed) experience with the fact that you feel an emotional, loving bond with the teachers that reach you. i know for a fact that all those sweet young women in my classrooms who don't think i'm looking when their eyes drop below the belt-line and who look up at me with wide-open, almost unblinking eyes are feeling something--something that's a little sexual, a little platonic, a little awe, and a little gratitude. Those students are LISTENING to me & are anxious to please me by doing outstanding work. Even when they're male and het, the students that i'm really reaching want me to notice them; they want me to see that they're special; they work harder for their grades than they ever have before just to hear their teacher say, "hey, this is outstanding work." In short, they want me to love them back.

And then there's the power differential. i'm a pretty laid-back guy, but no matter how "decentered" i attempt to make my classroom, i've got the power of the gradebook and all of us know it. For that matter, i've got power over the quality and kind of experience my students have every time they walk into my classroom. i don't think of it this way, but it's definitely something that affirms my sense of self, even creates a sense of meaning, a kind of importance. Wouldn't take an unusually weak person to begin to rely and then insist that his students provide him with that constant affirmation of his importance. Wouldn't be a very long walk from there to get to the point that one could rationalize to onself that his desire to make a difference in this student's life, to be "important" in this student's life, is really "love." That sex was a "natural" outgrowth of their close connection.

Of course there are also predators out there who don't even start from relatively pure motives, who simply enjoy the exercise of power & taking sexual advantage of students is an expression of that "Will to Power." So, i don't know if the question that started this thread is so much about a class of belief communities and their relative dangers as it is about individual teachers and individual students.

Yet another dimension of the teacher-student dynamic is that there are students out there who simply want to cede responsibility for all the messy, difficult, and ego-busting work that it takes to function well. Students can be surprisingly lazy and can hope to find in their teacher the tidy, comprehensible answer to what "this" is and how to live wisely and usefully in it. If one's going to generalize about cults--and i know i haven't really defined that term clearly--then the most unsafe thing about them is that they convince both the lazy and the not-so-lazy that they, in fact, do have the readily comprehensible answer. Look at all the trouble people have articulating the psychedelic experiences they have actually themselves had! Reality is far too complex and multi-dimensional to be available through a dogma or a single set of practices.

Probably the only litmus test that i could suggest for those uncertain about whether or not to experience a specific group is to arrange a talk or two with the main teacher. Charisma aside, if the teacher seems to have an answer for every question--especially the kind of answer that is easily memorizable and put on a bumper sticker--RUN! A teacher that is worthy of having students will put the onus on the student to come up with the big answers. The true teacher will say, "find out for yourself. We (not i) can show you how to look, but only you will be able to provide answers for the big questions in your life." So yes, they might ask you to relinquish certain dimensions of your ego when it comes to adopting certain physical forms during a specific religious ritual or activity. But they would never ask you to relinquish ego to the extent that YOU weren't doing the work to find answers.

[mossness]

Hey, dogen-

I have to say, as the one who started this thread, that I really like where you're coming from. As you put it in an earlier post, I too am "keeping my skeptic-dog tied up on the front porch." I like the way you're being open-minded and I appreciate that someone else is about as far along in this entheogen/mysticism trip as I am. I really liked Daniel's book, it opened my mind to an amazing amount of stuff that I had ignored before (when I didn't think I ignored anything) and I've learned a great deal in just three short months. I'm not sure what to make about the latest theories emanating from Pinchbecklandia, but I'm not rejecting them yet.

When it comes to cults, my personal experience is watching a brother (raised quasy-atheist, all-embracing Unitarian) become a fundamentalist Christian. I can't even relate to him, our worldviews are so far apart. I'm sure a lot of folks on this board would say it's all good, whatever works for him, but I'm just not down with the way religions and spiritualist outfits take our most vulnerable moments and turn them into God's voice. As a political activist, it's frustrating to see people take political positions based on religious beliefs, when those positions run so obviously contrary to their daily lives. And so many of the New Age groups lead people right out of politics.

Anyways, I won't rant. I admire Daniel and I've learned a lot from this message board. Onwards.

Nick

[Argon Steele]

More and more to me it seems the world situation is showing us the real enemy is fundamentalism. Right now a radical apocolyptic Christian cult has stolen control of the USA and is trying to usher in the second coming by starting a war with Islamic extemists who are willing to sacrafice themselves because of their deep need of thirty virgins. The majority of the country is going along because they are so enraptured by capatilist materialism they can't even see what's happenning while those of us who can are spending all out time worrying about 2012!

Seriously though, I think if you seek you will find, but if you try to hard you will be mislead. I've never looked for a teacher because I know when the student is ready the teacher will come. At 33 I'm beginning to think maybe a mentor or teacher of somekind might be good, so now maybe I can be open to that. At 22 I tried to follow Carlos Castaneda home one night and was surrounded by twenty Santa Monica cops!

Sex, unfortunatly is often about power, a similar kind of power as spiritual power (or death power or economic power). Sometimes all those wires get crossed in gross ways. It seems almost every spiritual school in America has had it's sex scandels. Maybe it's a reflection of our puritanical and repressive heritage, maybe monogamy is just not natural, (and celebacy even less), and these frustrations cause all this real sexual ugliness that is everywhere.

My 5 minute DMT trip gave me most of the real "knowledge" that I have, but I only got that strong message because I was ready for it. For me it was enlightenment, but I know so many people who have tried DMT and just not gotten the message, so I'm not really willing to prescribe it to everyone. (ok, I do think everyone should try it once, but I know everyone is just going to get what they can handle)

This is a great thread, we are really lucky to have so many intelligent people here (and this space, thanks D)

I guess I probably wouldn't go to the ayauasca ceremony if I was getting weird vibes like that. Just wait for it to come (it seems to be everywhere these days). After DMT I really wanted to do peyote, but passed up a few opportunites to do it hardcore on the rez' because I wanted my first experience to be more mellow, comfortable. I waited a few years but it came and it was great and now I'd be really down with doing the full ceremony. Next on my list is opium, but you wont see me running off to any opium bars!

sorry for the rambling post, too much THC in the syst ;)

[steve]

Dogen, Thanks very much for your thoughts. (I actually wrote the following before the last couple posts) I appreciate the academic angle because it does show how nearly universal, or at least very widespread, is the tendency to idolize one’s teacher, whether this be in a mundane or esoteric setting. It also nicely illustrates the fact that it often ultimately comes from a sincere, if naïve, wish on the part of a seeker, to hook up with someone who seemingly knows more. Of course, there are complications with esoteric teachings that do not enter into the ordinary educational relationships. Here a degree of giving up of one’s will is, at least in some cases, actually advisable. I believe this is true primarily because certain efforts are necessary on the evolutionary path that are nearly impossible to make for ourselves; we are too scared sometimes, or more importantly, unaware of our own capacities. To a certain extent, we are asked to walk on the water, and won’t even try as long as things are left to us and our generally puny conceptions of self. Relinquishing the will (really it’s the little self-will) allows us to go beyond ordinary limitations; a teacher serves to show that those limitations are more often than not, purely imaginary. At the same time, relinquishing one’s will to a teacher, even for a short time, is no small thing, and as Chi mentioned, it can be very dangerous, very destructive. There seem to be many, many people out there who have had negative experiences with gurus and the like. To many of these ‘wise men’, I could even give the benefit of the doubt and assume they themselves truly believed they were doing their students a favor by sleeping with them, or whatever. Others, as you mentioned, Dogen, are more purely of evil-intent.

So, this brings up a question for anyone who is interested in pursuing a path with a teacher. (Not that this is necessarily right for everyone.) How does one go about giving up one’s will when we all know how dangerous it can be? Well, I recently had a bit of a revelation in this regard. Not an answer, just an insight. I realized that on some level it is a decision that is analogous to the marriage commitment. For myself, recently married (the second time, but God, how much I learned making that first mistake), the ‘decision’ came quite literally in a flash – but a flash that came after a significant time together. The precipitating event was of course purely subjective, but it sufficed to show me, in an instant of quite expansive consciousness, that this was someone I could quite fulfillingly, quite lovingly, spend my life with. Of course, this came some time after we had been considering marriage, so there was ‘material’ to work with in making the ‘decision’. But it wasn’t so much a decision as an instant certainty. Now, I think choosing a teacher – if one feels the need to go that path, at least for a while – must be of the same nature. That is, one must fully and completely trust before making the ‘decision’, and this trust must be based on experience and understanding, which itself requires some amount of time. Unfortunately, too often esoteric leaders assume a kind of infallibility aura that almost demands immediate acceptance, and the group feeling, the stupid herd instinct that accrues to even legitimate teachings, puts additional pressure on the new student to get on the bus now. Of course, work within a group may or may not be useful for one. But if it is, as Chi said, one really needs to be cautious, and this is the kind of caution I would advise.

[sidecross]

Buddhism is having a resurgence in the United States and many women have reached a position of teacher. If I were one who felt a need for placing total trust in such a teacher, I would choose a woman. The odds of not being abused might be better.

[Proteus]

Here's a weird thing. i used to have the discussion-board "handle" you see at the left, but was unable to log-in with it a few weeks back & couldn't re-register with it. So, i started over with a new i.d.--DOGEN. Now i can't register with that one, but my original i.d. is now o.k. again. Changing virtual shape all the time--very Protean indeed! Don't know who i'll appear as next week.

[sidecross]

Whether it be as Proteus or dogen, you won't come back as any ordinary Tom, Dick, or Harry.

[Proteus]

Also sprach Daniel: chi writes: "One could argue with me and say just keep away from anyone who asks that you give up your will or self-identity, but actually, most philosophies speak about giving up the ego and your self-identity to truly experience the "all" the "void" whatever."

Well, I would still argue with you. Sadly, many people are looking for an opportunity to give up their will - to a guru or ideology or state. The human will should be regarded as sacrosanct, and any attempt to delude or impell it should be regarded with suspicion. I’d like to circle back to the interesting dynamic between seekers and teachers (and the cults that gather around them) expressed in the above-quoted exchange between Daniel and Chi. Just to be above-board and all, here’s where I’m coming from. As the nom de Net, Proteus, might imply, I’ve been a bit of a shape-shifter spiritually speaking. 11 years of serious read the bible and pray every day Christian fundamentalism—very much of the God said it, I believe it, that settles it type that mossness finds in his brother; about 8 years of Sabbath-keeping Conservative Judaism--formal conversion, adult Bar Mitzvah, even the ceremonial re-circumcision (Oy!); and now about 4.5 years as a Zen Buddhist--and, yeah, sidecross, my "master" is a woman. Add to that 10 years of college education resulting in a doctorate and 11 years as a college professor and I flatter myself that I have a few insights into the glories and pitfalls of the teacher-student relationship.

The view from this odd position leads me to conclude that there are at least two basic "games" that a student can play. Actually, I think most folks play both games at different times and under specific circumstances. Group one plays the "believing game." Folks practicing this game shelve most of their critical faculties in order to experience teachings intimately—as their very own. The strengths of this approach include a relatively quicker initiation-disorientation period and a relatively steeper learning curve (which gets you to "cruising altitude" faster). "Believers" don’t question why "we bow to the Buddha altar when entering the zendo, they just submit to the received wisdom and bow." They don’t pause too often to wonder whether or not the basic claims a religion (or of a professor for that matter) are objectively verifiable; they just trust that they are and run headlong until they smack into a wall of some kind. The weakness of this game includes being duped relatively easily by fakers and predators and wasting precious time on teachings and approaches that are either not helpful or potentially destructive. I’ve seen this also result in kind of mental paralysis where everything is equally valid because "it’s all relative."

The second group plays the "doubting game." Folks who approach a teaching system while playing this game, only reluctantly lay down the arms of critical thought—and often never fully surrender them. Doubters question pretty much everything and withhold their full assent because they proceed from the assumption that there is no absolute Truth and that all approaches promising such a thing are flawed and incomplete. The strengths of this approach include not being easily duped, preserving a little private space to which retreat is possible in the event of disaster, and an intellectual engagement with teachings and approaches that frequently results in encyclopedic knowledge and carefully nuanced thought. The weaknesses of this "game" include a relatively long initiation-disorientation period which can lead to discouragement (or boredom) and a pattern of moving from one idea to another without ever getting any farther than the front porch of any school of thought. Perpetual doubters are intimate with the foyers of the world’s houses of worship, but have never gotten as far as the fellowship halls where there are warm fires, jokes, and the comfortable silences that only friends share.

As I say, I think that we all play both games, depending on the circumstances. Yet I "feel" that many of us are predisposed to one game or the other as a starting point. I think Daniel’s BOTH follows the trajectory of a man who begins by playing the doubting game while searching for the psychedelic heart of modern shamanism (to quote a phrase!) but who ends up playing the believing game after that proves more fruitful. In my somewhat checkered spiritual career, I’d say that I’ve tended to play the believing game at first and then shifted to the doubting game as various inconsistencies have demanded a more critical, distanced approach.

As a student of zen—and a serious, no dipping the toes in at the bank "swimmer" in two other major world religions—Chi’s words about the importance—no, the necessity—of surrendering the ego in order to penetrate fully a particular practice resonate deeply with me. Whether it’s enduring the ridicule and misunderstanding of friends and family, subjecting oneself to a variety of rigors that appear to have no logical purpose, or simply taking on faith an assertion about "the Truth," all deep religious learning requires that the student drop his or her ideas and take up the ideas of the new faith. As a professional educator, I’d add that secular learning, too, requires a measure of humility; the student who cannot or will not suspend his or her "own beliefs" in order to at least give new ideas a hearing can’t learn—nor can they be compelled to do so.

And you don’t have to be swimming in the mainstream to hear this fundamental truth about the teacher-student relationship. Steiner’s "How to Know Higher Worlds" states early on: "We begin with a fundamental mood of soul. Spiritual researchers call this basic attitude the path of reverence, of devotion to truth and knowledge. . . . Some children look up to those whom they revere with a holy awe. Their profound respect for these people works into the deepest recesses of their hearts and forbids any thoughts of criticism or opposition to arise. . . . Many of these young people become students of esoteric knowledge."

But I also hear what Daniel’s saying when he remarks that some people are all too willing to surrender their will to someone else. On average, over half of the students sitting in any class I teach have no genuine interest in learning. They consider their relationship with me and their other instructors as a financial transaction: they pay their tuition and if we teachers do our job, they get a diploma and move on to the "real" world. Such students have little conception of what true learning is; they can muster no patience for the effort and discipline that true intellectual attainment requires; their effort is thrown into completing the transaction as effortlessly and painlessly as possible. Indeed, many would be appalled at the notion that an education could works a fundamental change in them. And that same kind of laziness exists in every spiritual tradition that I’ve merged with. The majority of the folks I’ve encountered would quite happily settle for a little less stress, a little more patience, and "truths" that can be neatly printed on a bumper sticker. But, dude!, let’s not get "fanatical" about this stuff. I mean, business is business; ya gotta look out for number one; we’re only human, after all.

I guess, then, while some might characterize the teacher-student or student-cult relationships in terms of a battlefield where a struggle for control of the student’s ego/will is being waged as, I think it’s more like a playing field where different games yield different results. Play either one all the time & you lose something valuable. Like everything else that matters, "belonging" to a faith community requires that a person risk being made a fool of or getting hurt and requires constant vigilance not only against abuse but, at least as importantly, against developing false consciousness, mental laziness, or sanctimonious self-congratulation.

Proteus/Dogen

[sidecross]

Speaking of Zen, teachers and the difficult issue of surrender, Nagarjuna, a Zen master who is said had no paper trail in his own hand, had a distinctive method with a student.

In some ways he may have been an intellectual psychedelic; by the use of dialectic language taken to the surreal, he was able to bring a student to the Middle Way.

It was not a walk in the park as much as a walk to the park; a very unsettling trip it could be.

[StSimon]

Originally posted by Proteus:
On average, over half of the students sitting in any class I teach have no genuine interest in learning. They consider their relationship with me and their other instructors as a financial transaction: they pay their tuition and if we teachers do our job, they get a diploma and move on to the "real" world.
You sir, as an educator, understand exactly why I dropped out of college. I would go so far as to say closer to 90% of my fellow students had no real interest in learning, but were there because their high school guidance counsellor said they should go to college. Have I taken the "right" path by forcing myself to be responsible for my education? Hard to say at this point, but I can say I have followed my path.


Now for a bit of an alternate perspective on many of the topics in this thread.

I read a bit about Sai Baba being accused of sexually molesting young students of his. Many parents were naturally outraged, but some took it as a blessing - there son was chosen by a divine agent of god, he was merely trying to "raise their kundalini energy", or any other justification they could find.

In attempting to "transcend" one's ego, one systematically approaches and denies each of one's fears or limitations. In a way this provides a justification for keeping psychedelics illegal, one must step outside the confines of society to become oneself. What arena do people have more fears and hangups over than sexuality? Any looking at one's self MUST confront this unmentionable demon.

Another possible facet to this hideous gem - imagine a guru who intentionally abuses students in order to give them strength, the strength to rebel and say NO, to stand up for oneself in the face of authority. TOUGH love by intentionally playing the adversary and providing a force to push against and grow.

These are dangerous energies, and I don't intend to imply them appropriate for everyone, nor as the root of any individual's personal experience. Yet, this age has been called the KALI YUGA, the Industrial Age, divinity in its most debased material form, when every dark impulse will play itself out. Personally, I long for the extremes of experience, to know the limits of existence; and fortunately I grew up in the theatre, so I could feel emotional extremes with people yet still be their friends afterwards. I have often joked how this affected my worldview, because I knew that GOD and SATAN joked with eachother in the dressing room before and after the show.

Hardcore S&M wiccan covens are out there. Serious practitioners of S&M do so specifically because of the altered states evoked, and speak casually about the "sorcery" involved. Many blend Crowley into their "teachings".

The danger comes in when there is a lack of honesty, thus preventing any "safety-net" measures. Honesty goes into hiding from the natural suspicious nature of these activities. Thus spawning a nasty cycle of arguments that surrounds any "protective" issue in society: from sex to drugs, obscenity, violence in the media, pornography, welfare, gun control, etc.. that to address each and every concern proves futile. Getting any two people to agree on their "personal boundaries", or what those boundaries should be socially, seems nigh impossible; but overstep their boundaries and you will know about it!