Well and succinctly put Kathy.
And now I will take the liberty to say in thousands of words (ugh) what you said nicely with very few:


recoverer said, Quote:



Hi recoverer,

That is a relatively short passage, but it is nevertheless quite loaded.
Now I really need some clarification on hogwash.
Or, can we at least now clean the pearls after they have been cast?

Regarding fake "gurus who point to themselves",
Isn't Jesus Christ the Guru Who pointed to Himself and said,
"I am Alpha and Omega",  "I am the Way and the Goal", "I and my Father are One", etc.?
Can you think of a few more???

Now recoverer, do you even read or think about what you write about your own Guru? According to your evidently confused and hyper-simplistic fake-guru detector template, your own Guru, the Christ is a fake. Why undermine your own support? That might become a painfully conflicted life path, don't you think?

Would you therefore as you imply, as a healthy alternative to the 'fake guru', follow any 'ordinary preacher' who says "Christ is Lord" regardless of their spiritual achievment or lack thereof, simply because the word "preacher" has a different ethno-cultural origin than the word "guru"? What is the functional difference anyway if they are both below your required standard - as in "fake"?
But before you send a check to Pat Robertson -

Wait - listen. How does this sound?
Christ is a fake because he pointed to Himself.
Preachers are not fake because they point to Christ.
All 'gurus' are fake because they are not Jesus.
Christ is somehow not thought of as a Guru even if he actually is to millions.
And, an additional note to add to the confusion:
Some Gurus have embodied the Christ Principle even if their name/form/personality was not Jesus of Nazereth.  
Judas' Priest!!
Yes, hogwash comes in many forms.
It is pretty ridiculous isn't it?

Albert, you may think you left, but are still very much in the guru scene, apparently.
My friend, you are swimming in it and don't even know it, even if your Guru the Christ does.
Moreover --
You have simply chosen the one form of Guru that suits your currently adapted and evolved belief system needs.
But don't become disturbed by this revelation...

It is of course everyone's gift and priviledge to make their own choices - and change them too as you did, guru or none, and as many times as one cares to - but a problem might arise in making our own choices exclusive of others' same right to choose other forms and personalities embodying the same Spirit by denouncing others' relative individual choices, standards and acheivments within the general evolution as "fake".

Listen to what a wise man once said:

Quote:


The key phrase here is "the spirit of Christ" not - 'the form of' or 'the image of', or "the personality of".
On the highest level, that same Spirit is also available in Krishna, the Buddha, etc. - other Gurus (and again, feel free to use the word "Teacher" instead of "Guru" if it allows you to breathe easier - inwardly and outwardly)

Isn't it remarkable how an omnipotent God could descend, take on different forms in different geographic areas to affect different changes in different times for different people according to different needs? And yet, we can all benefit right here and now. How clever and wise is that omniscient God? It's enough to make one pause to offer love, gratitude, and reverence.

Quote:


Can you believe - others have found the same about Krishna and the Buddha?
Among other things, it is the fundamentalist mindset that regards outer form as the superior qualification vs. the inner essence, and as such, incorrectly denounces other forms of the same Essence as invalid.

Krishna addresses that issue thousands of years B.C. and like Christ, points to Himself, also uttering similar bombastic, blasphemous self-referrent outrages like, :

"Fools disregard Me when I assume a human form; for they are unaware of my higher nature as the Supreme Lord of all beings"
"I body Myself forth from age to age."
"I am the origin of the universe and its dissolution",
"If I should cease to work, the universe would perish"
"I am the Lord of all beings...there exists nothing whatever higher than I am."
"Know Me to be the Eternal Seed of all things that exist...they are in Me."
...Etc.

Imagine the brass fake-guru balls on that loser!  

Quote:


I hope you might try to see that one could very easily substitute the name Krishna or Buddha in every single instance where Christ/Christian appears in the above and not change your meaning even one iota, nor would that constitute hostility towards Christianity. In another substitution exercise that might be effective to illumine another level of the same issue: "Perhaps you might forget about your hostility towards"......gurus, for example, by replacing "Christ/Christian with: "God's infallable dispensation to individual human need in all forms"? That could be the starting point for a labor of love that could extend to every possible being in the entire creation that operates as an instrument in an unfathomable divine play of specific immediate need and particular instantaneous fulfilment - that is in no possible way "fake".

The world is what we ask for it to be, all the way from the lowest depths to the highest heights and everything in between.

Of course the mind wants to divide up this amazing ceaslessly dynamic unified continuity, and in the purely material world, division appears to be the way - divide and conquer is the march of success. In the spiritual world a different standard seems to apply regarding this approach to reality, rendering exclusivity, separation and division the cause of depression, frustration, and eventual bitter isolation. In the spiritual life, divisive, exclusive attitudes are probably by nature necessarily at odds with other more essential progressive tendencies and they almost certainly do create internal conflict - or more accurately, they are representative of existing untransformed internal conflict in the transitioning nature, as in a 'house divided'. But I'm guessing that as ego transforms into a divinized individuation, so unity must as a result increase, because the basis of unity is divinity, right? Or, is an increase in unity while at the same time an acceptance of diversity the sadly mistaken evil fantasy of that vast, totally homogeneous, monolithic conspiricy known as "EASTERN THOUGHT"?

People tend to believe what they frequently externalize in speech. This can have consequences in terms of real physical plane manifestation in one's own life, as in self-imposed psychic and physical debilities. We often see the results of that process on the mental/emotional plane right here in seekers who appear fraught with a desperate and deep negativity and cynicism, as well as the less entrenched versions involving the silly derision of what they are not familiar with, don't understand, or don't accept as real. How does that help anybody move forward?

By the same exact token, and in a related subject from this thread, I agree with you that if one doesn't find the Bible personally inspiring - that does not make it "hogwash", especially because others may find inspiration in it. But just like with "fake gurus" - why bother with it in that case? In fairness, it should be noted that the same person who made that comment about the Bible (insertion: As I post this I notice that Star.explosion has more or less retracted and very thoughtfully revised some comments that seemed harsh and according to him, realized them to be not even in his own best interest. Given that there has been some recent acknowledgement of others' hard work, both inner and outer offering here, including some appreciation of my own efforts, I am inspired to do the same and say to Star.explosion that what he has done greatly inspires me and I really appreciate his open mindedness and flexibility in his re-consideration - bravo.) did not say anything at all disparaging about the Christ (at least that I read) which is a slightly different thing. Although perhaps (originally) rudely put - he simply reported finding the Bible not suited for his purposes. In fact - that sounds a lot, no - exactly like some of your (recoverer's) very own adamant assertions of preference, exclusion and denouncement that have been voiced so persistently here by you, in fact - identical.

If so-called 'Christians' or 'fake gurus' and all their perverted and misapplied misinterpretations of elevated and legitimate Source don't serve to expedite you in your journey, why bother with them?
Like - why deliberately order, pay for and sit down to eat food you don't like, or have to pick through to find something edible, and then complain about the restaurant?

Better for one's own search would be to have a look at the lives, stories, teachings of authentic followers of the Christ. Best would be the Christ Himself, if you believe in what He represents, or the same as available in other forms. That is Who I would trust as a Guru. Go to the Source.

Personally, I do not doubt the "audacious" pronouncements that the Christ made, that Krishna made, that Buddha made, nor do I think it makes Them suspect as Great Teachers. But I would look carefully at the statements of "fakes". Why bother with the limited and the limiting?
Well, for one inescapable thing, because that is pretty much the game - to shatter and move beyond incremental limits as we travel along the way. However...

If I am over here shattering limit "A" in my life at this moment, does that make someone who is transcending limit "Q", a "fake"? What about so-called "Christians" who perhaps are not "fakes" as much as they may simply not be following the teachings of the Christ? Can anybody say that they have accomplished that task in a perfect, complete manner? Very few.

Why then even choose and use a word that imposes such a heavy additional burden of limitation on others who are by virtue of their presence here on Earth, all stuck with the same difficult life challenges and limitations?

I think that would go for teachers and students alike, who's "designation" as one or the other may change even on a momentary basis according to the relative nature of immediate role,  and who occupy a vast continuum of standards and capacities that also shift and change as everyone struggles to make progress, which is hardly linear or consistent. If that is true, then where do we draw that line - who's who right now at this moment? Who's the fake?

It is abundantly clear to me then, striking even, that in all this repeated discussion on "fake gurus", there is never, ever any mention of the very essential, necessarily reciprocal issue of the "fake student". That is an absent focus that is not only highly integral to, perhaps inseparable from the general issue of so-called "fakeness", but it is also the one element in that integral polarity that by nature can actually be responsibly and practically addressed by each individual aspirant on a moment to moment basis and according to relative role applied equally whether someone is a 'student' or 'teacher' - up to and including the Christ Himself, who had to learn and assume the role of His Father.

Perhaps it is the application of PureUnconditionalLove that allows for this oneness and legitimazation of everyone's unique path, and the many roles we play along the way.

Remember what a wise man once said:
Quote:


When Christ points to Himself, it is because of Who He is and What He represents, and He is actually, factually and truthfully pointing to pure Spirit - the Universal Light and Love which is really the real Guru. That is also the same Spirit that pervades everything and everyone, that we all aspire to, including all the fakes like you and me.


- u

Yes, each of us has interesting things to say, about the Bible, about love, about life.

We can point to the moon and point to the moon, but in the end the light is what we seek. Look up, look up, at the light falling down on our faces! Light is everywhere, and it is everything I need.

Look down, look down. Is that a light I see? Reflected in the stillness, too, is everything I need.

I could go over my life with a fine-toothed comb, my struggles, my happiness, and write my own Bible. It would take a long time.

We cannot ever make generalizations about each other which are completely true. Perhaps, just listen to each other.

I like what Kathy said. Can we care about these people, who wrote these stories? I listen to some of them, and they seem a lot like me. Just as dazed and confused at times. Just as angry. Just as amazed and gloriously happy to feel the presence of God.

Would it be the same book if all the "gory" and "evil" parts were taken out? Would we be able to relate to these people at all? If legends and history and inspiration have any purpose at all, they should remind us of our own humanity, what we have in common.

Then again, I don't read much.

love, blink

recoverer wrote on Aug 11^th, 2008 at 7:26pm:


Yeah, that's my highest wish too. But somehow I think a world full of suffering is more of an ideal playground for the development of our souls. Besides, perhaps things would get boring if everyone was happyhappyjoyjoy all the time.  

And thank you very much, Ultra, for your kind words to me. Lately I've been trying to cast off the worst of my cynicism, which has grown quite big over the past couple of years, ever since I declared myself an atheist two summers ago. Not that cynicism isn't important, but let it prosper too much, and it can lead to a very nihilistic and hopeless mindset.

You're right. It doesn't have much to do with Afterlife Knowledge, and I'm guilty of being off-topic here too. Personally I feel it's easy to go off-topic on this board because the afterlife encompasses so much, and suddenly you're talking about things connected to the afterlife instead, like for instance the bible. Also, to me at least, it feels like Afterlife Knowledge is the main board in a way, where we all meet and shout, so sometimes you're bound to get off-topic threads and posts.

Stjerneeksplosion:

You're not the only person to become dissatisfied with a religious teaching because of the homophobic ideas presented. Check out Carlos Santana's experience below. Was Carlos being a cynic, or was he being reasonable?

Carlos Santana and Sri Chinmoy
"This shit is not for me--I don't care how enlightening it is."

February 29, 2000
By Rick Ross
Renowned musician and multi-Grammy winner Carlos Santana was a follower of Guru Sri Chinmoy for nine years (1972-1981). In a recent interview (Rolling Stone March 16, 2000) he discussed his time as a devotee within the group. His name while a member was "Devadip" ("the eye, the light of the lamp of God"). That name, given to him by Chinmoy--is inscribed on a guitar strap he still keeps at his home displayed as an apparent memento.

His wife of many years Deborah also joined the group and was then named "Urmila."

Carlos Santana was first introduced to Sri Chinmoy by guitarist John McLaughlin, but soon his experience in the group became a regimented "West Point approach to spirituality." That regimen included daily meditation at 5:00 AM (Chinmoy's followers meditate on his picture). Because Chinmoy liked running Deborah Santana ran marathons. Though she once ran a "devotional vegetarian restaurant" for the group in San Francisco Deborah says now they did "ridiculous things" to "prove [their] devotion" (e.g. "who could sleep the least and still function"). She adds, "I once ran a forty-seven-mile race. It wasn't enough just to run a marathon."

Carlos Santana didn't run claiming, "This shit is not for me--I don't care how enlightening it is." He offered his help through music--often playing Chinmoy's songs at meditation. But he was somewhat annoyed by group announcements that these were "Santana performances."

Santana used to describe his guru as a graduate of "many Harvards of consciousness" who sat "at the seat of God." He once said, "I'm still in [spiritual] kindergarten [and] without a guru I serve only my own vanity…I am the strings, but [Chinmoy] is the musician." However, now the accomplished musician explains "everything about [Chinmoy] turned to vinegar."

The guru apparently once preached sternly against champion tennis player Billie Jean King's homosexuality and Santana didn't like it. Something seemed to snap and he thought, "What the crappity smack is all this--this guy's supposed to be spiritual…mind your own spiritual business and leave her alone," he remembers thinking.

After leaving the group it seems Sri Chinmoy "was pretty vindictive," recalls Santana. "He told all my friends not to call me ever again, because I was to drown in the dark sea of ignorance for leaving him." Despite all this Santana still claims, "It was a good learning experience."

ultra wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:


I just want to add that..dear gods, is the time that much already!?!?   Er..I just want to add that I didn't feel like that you were pointing at me when you were commenting on cynicism. And I truly like what you wrote about it in your most recent post, how it can hinder creativity, and so on. It's exactly what I have experienced, I now realize.

Oh, and recoverer, thanks for the info on Santana. I didn't know he had been in a personality cult. He was of course reasonable. It's nice how that the homophobic comment is what made something snap in him. I guess it's because he has much love for other humans. I got some respect for the guy now. I'm not so sure I'll ever be a fan, though.  

PS. Just so we're clear here. If I read about any tinfoil-hat theories on these boards, I'm still gonna comment on them. I still have my healthy dose of cynicism, it's just not overshadowing other aspects about me anymore. Good lord, this week has been a revelation, both physically, mentally and creatively. This afterlife business is not all, y'see, other things have happened too. I might eventually think back on this week as the most important one in my life.

PPS: Thank you, thank you all for the support I feel from you, even from people who hasn't really said anything to me. I feel at home in these bits and bytes.

PPPS: Now I'm seriously going to bed, it's way too late for me.

It seems to me that we trip over ourselves when we attempt to explain "who we are" in spiritual/religious terms. We over-identify with the ideas we are absorbing/observing/reviewing/reacting to.

Therefore, we make personal with each other what is already personal to the point of absurdity.

If a belief system does not free us to individually stand up, without pretentions of "better than" or "more knowing than" or other such egoistic thinking, there is little value in the "operating system" for us.

Without the ability to look at another human being impartially, yet with true love....how is it called love? How is it called spiritual?

It seems to me that any belief system which does not allow us to drop layers of the "false" us is detrimental. There is a new being which is lighter, more free, more loving, more real, existing more authentically in each moment.

As we take each others' hands to share our new being, it is not so important now "how" we free ourselves, only that we do.