SK on Gold, the guru as mugger in civil society
From sillykitty’s remarks, below, and here:
The description of guru tactics given by sillykitty raises some crucial issues. We have to bailout of the guru game altogether because it is starting to snowball in ways that are out of control
Why should we be destructive to create growth? And what growth are we talking about. Gold, it should be noted, is not a guru, but a Crowley operator who assumed a Gurdjieff cloak (among others) to pursue private aims. To give ‘gurus’ the go ahead to be ‘destructive’ is about like granting the same right to your business rivals. Please note this point. Note it!
All the crap about gurus flooding out of India is a series of out of context cultural cut flowers. The Indian context, at least, has a series of failsafes, and traditional matrices of relations where people know what they are doing.
But in the West this is not true. This the ‘crazy wisdom guru’ nonsense is simply off the wall.
There is no status to the figure of the guru in liberal civil society. It has no religious, legal, or cultural basis. Therefore the relations between gurus and disciples, so-called, cannot be anything different form those between individuals related by social laws. Anyone who can’t work within that framework to deal with ‘ego’ is a dangerous fraud who shouldn’t be a teacher at all.
This kind of invitation to destructive behavior on the part of so-called gurus is thus a floating invitation to lunatics.
sillykitty, and others, please note that this kind of ‘destructive behavior’ is said to be an action against ‘ego’, but it can’t ever work. First, because (e.g. Gold) is himself egoic, and further because ‘ego’ can’t be destroyed. It is a misunderstanding of what ‘ego’ is. And shows that those who talk this way are deluded. I note that this is a quote from groupies trying to defend e.j. gold, who, I doubt, would ever make such statements.
These statements about ego destruction are dangerous, because they always end up trashing the life and potential spirituality of the nicest people by the most brutal. I passed by the Gold outfit years ago, and as I peered into its core saw the cases where this happened. Perfect good simpletons were given the destruction treatment, while those prepared to commit fascist violence out of ‘surrender’ to the teaching were given secretly the plus treatment.
Let’s be finished with this kind of nonsense, especially with respect to a loco like Gold.
Finally, where does the destruction stop? Mass murder of whole populations to create spiritual growth?
You see the problem.
Our relations are those of civil society. There aren’t any exceptions in private ashrams. These gurus are then simply muggers.
as an illustration i’ll quote an anonymous e.j. gold student’s defense of gold’s tactics,
“When user LolaFroggy asserts that Gold is a “destructive” guru, she may well be right. All growth in any sphere of life occurs by “destruction”, in the sense that what comes after, is not the same as what was before.Change and destruction are two sides of the same coin.Ego death is an inherently painful process, that can be made even more painful, by the holding on to limited and limiting self-concepts. This holding, limiting, contracting process itself, is the mechanism of ego.
“Gurus who are not “destructive” in the above sense, are not gurus.”
(–excerpted from the e.j. gold wikipedia entry, discussion page.)
while there is truth implicit in the above statement, it will be apparent to those concerned by the issues discussed on this blog, that therin lies justification for abuse.