BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Magick as an Alibi - I'll teach you a lesson!

  
 
Papess
22:52 / 15.07.04
I am wondering what opinions people have on the limits of guru-ship? What, if any, negotiations and limits should be put on mentors to be safe transmitters of occult knowledge. Or, should it be that the guru is given carte blanche to do everything - by whatever means necessary - in order to transmit an initiation or teaching? Should the guru be responsible to/for the student, or should student be entirely responsible for themself in spite of the guru and teaching methods? There are issues of possible abuse of the given authority to the mentor/teacher. Especially, since there is no governing body of figureheads in magick, (There isn't, right?),

Is it ever okay in magick, especially in a teaching situation, to cause grief, try to crush a spirit, decieve, generally cause harm and hardship for a student in the name of magick? Is this just bullshit or is there ever a time when it is called for and justified? What situations would those be? Who would you consider is qualified to administer these types of teachings? Can even the lowest common denominator inflict harm and then exclaim, "I was teaching you a karmic lesson!" leaving them clear and free of any responsibility because obviously, it is your karma and therefore, your problem.

I am especially interested in veiws from thelema, shamanism, tantra and chaos.


Thanx

Ok, discuss.
 
 
LVX23
06:15 / 16.07.04
Tough question. All of the traditions you cite engage aspects of the Trickster. This is the sudden whack to the head aspect of magick, the notion that things often need to be torn down before they can be rebuilt anew. Shamanism, vision quests, fasting, boot camps, etc... The other angle is the slow and steady smoothing of the stone, as it were. Meditation, movement and energy arts, mantra, and scholastic discipline, among others. Gurus in the latter category tend to be a lot mellower, and the former more fiery. ONe may hold greater power while another greater illumination.

Herein lies my quandry: It is the repsonsibility of the individual to guard themselves against potential harm, but they are often seeking such a guru because they feel fractured and may be unable to adequately filter out personalities that may do them damage. Some people need the whack to the head, other people will break when hit.

I suppose a truly ascended guru would be capable of assesing each specific situation and determining with some precision which method is most appropriate for that individual.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:06 / 16.07.04
Interesting questions, May.

Some points: firstly, I think it'd be useful to distinguish between the role of mentor, teacher, and guru, as IMO each role is structured by different dynamics. The increase of interest in Mentoring with respect to magic is particularly interesting to me, as mentoring is widely used in other spheres - in education, corporate business and in large organisations like hospitals (which is where I first encountered it) - so there is a large body of information pertaining to mentoring out there. The Coaching & Mentoring Network is one example of approaches to mentoring. There's another useful online mentoring resource here

Mentoring can be formal or informal, or shift between the two poles as required. I feel that a key to understanding the mentoring process is to highlight that it is a relationship - and like all relationships, requires negotiation and continual assessment. To give an example of how this can be translated into a magical setting, when I was acting as a magical mentor, the first thing I would focus on with the other person involved was clarifying our individual and mutual expectations of the relationship. This can be useful, as it serves to make explicit individuals' expectations about the process - both in terms of what people expect to gain from the relationship and in specifying the limitations of the relationship. It can also be useful for defining the boundaries of the relationship in terms of privacy, availability, etc.

Mentoring is a skill - or rather, to be an effective mentor requires facility with a number of skills. Moreover, mentoring can only be effective when both mentor and protege (as the other person involved is sometimes termed) work together. The Women's Business Centre has a useful breakdown of the roles/responsibilities as they relate to the mentor, the protege, and both parties.

That mentoring is only considered to be effective within the context of mutual consent and open communication IMO distinguishes it from the traditional 'teacher-student' dynamic, and the trope of the guru-disciple relationship - more of which later.
 
 
illmatic
09:11 / 16.07.04
Great topic May.

should it be that the guru is given carte blanche to do everything - by whatever means necessary - in order to transmit an initiation or teaching?

Never, IMHO. This is why – with no disrespect to LVX23 - I dislike (and actually disbelieve in) the idea of ascended masters and the like, as it introduces an element of transcendent authority into what already may be a difficult relationship. This may then work to justify abuses of power, cover up for the guru’s failings and gets away from the reality that they may in fact be a fallible, egocentric and sometimes just plain stupid human being just like you and me.

For me, one of most interesting points about these relationships is what we’re bringing into them as students – I think we should be very aware of our own expectations, desires, projections etc. What can the student bring to a relationship, rather thn the focus on what they’re going to get out of it. We should be aware of our own agendas, and also aware of what any potential teacher might be getting out of spending time and energy on us - it is unlikely they have chosen to lift us out of mud solely on the basis of divine benevolence – so what’s in it for them – money? A sense of responsibility? Ego? Carrying on a tradition? A combination of the above?

Obvious questions to ask really, but easily missed. It strikes me sometimes that many seekers are looking for relationships without responsibility, an authority figure who will tell them what to do – tick the books and you’ll get to nirvana - rather than someone who will challenge them, and force them to think for themselves. If you enter a relationship in such a fashion – leading your common sense at the door with your shoes, to quote someone I can’t remember - is it any wonder that you’re disappointed?

I think that one (possibly) justifiable act, that might qualify as abuse of teaching depending on where you’re standing – and that is the pushing away of a student to force them to make their own decisions, thereby destroying the authority place in him – forcing a student to make his own choices. Easy for me to say of course, but such an act could be really tough on all participants.

You might find this book interesting – The Double Mirror by Stephen Butterfield (now deceased). I haven’t read it but I really must get it. It’s an account of his relationship with Choygam Trunpa and his sangha, which by all accounts was a sad and disillusioning experience. The reviews contain an entry by his brother - quite moving. It sounds like Trungpa’s ego and actions – which included assaulting his students on occasion and alcoholism – was really out of control. I think it’s a cop out to explain this away as “crazy wisdom”, I think this lets Trungpa off the hook too easily and “divinises” out the complexity of what really occurred. How do we square these actions with his wonderful on Buddhism – well, “the map is not the territory” and life is always going to be stranger and more complicated than it’s written description.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
09:33 / 16.07.04
...should it be that the guru is given carte blanche to do everything - by whatever means necessary - in order to transmit an initiation or teaching?

The guru-student relationship is popularly characterised in terms of the student surrendering completely to the will of the preceptor.

The nuances of guru-devotion - in particular how it can lead to abusive power-relationships - has received a lot of attention, particularly as high-profile gurus such as Osho, Chogyam Trunkpa and Sai Baba have been critically examined. Alstad & Kramer's "The Guru Papers: Masks of authoritarian power" (discussed here) takes a critical look at gurus supposed infallibility. More recently, Hugh Urban (Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics and Power in the Study of Religion) has looked at the ways in which western new agers often uncritically accept the behaviour of gurus, and Susan Greenwood (Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld: An Anthroplogy) has examined how power dynamics are maintained in wiccan covens and magical orders. Another useful text in this regard is Sarah Caldwell's "The Heart of the Secret" article (posted on the pdfs thread) - her autobiographical account of life in Swami Muktananda's ashram.

Your point about the guru being given carte blanche to do everything and LVX's comment regarding the truly ascended guru for me, highlights the power/status imbalance with which guru-figures are often placed. Does a guru 'have' to be 'ascended'? What do we mean when we speak of gurus being 'ascended'? It seems to me that there's an element of collusion between individuals who become 'disciples' and those they elevate to guru-status.

Some exponents of gurudom (particularly the "crazy wisdom" of Chgoyam Trungpa) have claimed that certain 'teachers' are so elevated that any behaviour on their part - no matter how confusing, amoral or cruel it seems to outsiders - is 'really' performed dispassionately for the benefit of their disciples. If one buys into this, then what outsiders may see as abusive or cruel acts (two examples which spring to mind are Urban's observation that Chogyam Trungpa like to punch people in the face or Scott Lowe's recollection of Da Free John punching a pregnant woman in the stomach) are reframed as having 'spiritual' significance.

So the idea is emerging that one can have a spiritual teacher - a guru - and at the same time be able to criticise their behaviour when it is warranted. There is of course, a long historical tradition of maintaining a critical perspective on gurus in India, but before this post becomes too mammoth, I'll gab on about that another time.
 
 
rising and revolving
13:11 / 16.07.04
"Can even the lowest common denominator inflict harm and then exclaim, "I was teaching you a karmic lesson!" leaving them clear and free of any responsibility because obviously, it is your karma and therefore, your problem. "

As I understand the Guru relationship in the Hindu sense, EXACTLY the opposite is true. The Guru is actually taking on the Karmic load for the action in order to benefit the student. This is why Gurus 'need' to be highly ascended, among other reasons, so they can burn off the Karma they accumulate from 'shaking up' others.

Not really a point, that one, just saying that as I understand it, that's not the way Karma works.
 
 
Papess
21:16 / 16.07.04
WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD!

Great responses. Thank you. I have been thinking about this for a long time since I lost interest in mainstream religion when I could see how corrupt it was. Even in Buddhism, as with Catholic preists, the guru/leader/teacher/clergy does not always appear to be working out of selfless compassion, or at least in the best interest of his/her bewildered and sometimes awe-struck student. Trugyam and Osho being very good examples.

I recognize the difference AoG pointed out, the distinction of "mentor" as opposed to "guru". Mentor would be closer to peer status and be more specific to skill oriented development, where as, the guru guides their student in fundamental and momentous concerns. Is this fair to say? If this is the case, it is clear a mentor would not need to go to extremes to teach a skill unless, perhaps, it was an extreme skill (?). Then maybe they would have to be a bit of a "mentoring guru", for lack of a better term.

Also, I would like to thank you for those links on mentoring AoG, very helpful in more ways than one. They shall be useful for a current project.

Okay, LVX23 says:
"Some people need the whack to the head, other people will break when hit. I suppose a truly ascended guru would be capable of assesing each specific situation and determining with some precision which method is most appropriate for that individual."

Which, is a very good point, but hard to determine. Somehow one must divise a method, (and this ties in with the student being responsible for their own process) by which the transcendancy of a guru can be tested. How does one measure the level of attainment, and the ability to discern karmic ramifications? Through moral conduct? Through academic acheivement? Through various acts of a miraculous nature that Agent Scully could explain away in a matter of minutes, in time for her next autopsy? Not even the establishment of religious institution has overcome the misuse of power within it's own ranks and authorities.

I am currently deliberating about this matter because as I do believe there is an element of "crazy wisdom" necessary for one to understand the transcendental, subtler nature of things, as there is a certain inexplicable "madness" about existence that is a teaching in itself. However, I think some clear boundary about what does set apart the authentic guru (and even mentors, if there is a question of abuse of that relationsip) from charlatans and fools.

This is a two-sided issue for me, as I have experienced some very brutal lessons from mentors and "gurus" *using the term loosely*. Although I did learn something it was quite taxing and often left me alone to gather up the pieces and make sense of them to acquire a comprehensive teaching. Now, as someone who has actually done that rebuilding, (or is certainly in the process of it), I realize that there is a certain responsibility and choices I have to make if I am to teach myself or convey the knowledge I have acquired at some point. The methods I have been taught by are not methods by which I feel are appropriate or terribly helpful and I do not wish to employ them if at all possible - and that may be the most comprehensive lesson I learned from it all! So, as a student and possibly a mentor, myself, I certainly would not want to fall into the trap of my benefactors, least the true principles of the teaching be lost to indulgence.

As a side note: It is not my intention to teach as if I am a some self-proclaimed guru, if I choose to teach at all. I am trying to develop a system of teaching and mentorship that applies spiritual doctrines to social issues in a situation where no educational structure is in place at the moment but the agenda presents difficulties when developing a proper cirriculum and discourse. Certainly though, I am not about to tackle this single-handedly, even with my arrogance! ...and I am researching and developing the idea with others of the same interest. We may or may not come up with a producitve model. Here's hoping, anyway.

As a student, I think teaching with methods like "crazy wisdom" are applicable and acceptable, but the results have to be done without harmful consequence to the student - as more of a demonstration of the teaching.

There is an example I remember from a book of short stories about a lama who was the embodiment of crazy wisdom and once peed on a villagers tangka he made, that he was taking to make as an offering to the Buddha. The lama took the scroll from the villager and opened it, saying that there was one thing missing, and then proceeded to pee on the tangka. The villager freaked out until he realized that the lama had pissed gold trimming on the tangka the man had painted....This is an example of crazy wisdom, but I don't know anyone who pees gold. So, is it allegorical?

In contrast, the example of Dorje Tröllö, (Who was once a demon, now turned Tibetan crazy wisdom deity used to cut through spiritual materialism, after being subdued by Guru Padmasambhva) as in other demon accounts, the consequential application of crazy wisdom from the Guru Padmasambhava, proved to be beneficial in so much as it served the purposes of buddhism and the needs of the people he was trying to liberate. Then again, the legend, upon scrutiny, closely resembles the alledged abuses of some the christian missionaries - demonizing the current lore and replacing it with the worship of new idols and doctrines, (sounds similar to another situation in the md-east!), often causing the aggrandizement of the harbinger. In the case of christianity, I believe some missionaries have been canonized for such efforts.

Again though, are we dealing largely in allegory when dealing with demons, especially in the tibetan legends? Although dehumanizing a potential threat to one's power is a classic tactic in manipulating popular opinion.

In spiritual/magickal practices such as tantra however, because of the intimate, yet impersonal nature of it's teachings, abusive behavior can be much more easily applied. It is necessary to teach these things however, or they are lost. So, how to proceed as a student, mentor and practitioner of these arts? I suppose there is a certain amount of trust involved. As LVX mentioned, sometimes those seeking guidance are broken already. Trusting that the one you look to for guidance isn't sending you up the river, or fulfilling their own needs at your expense is integral to the actual teachings of tantra and occult arts. Or else it is just a mundane lesson in general assholery, pardon the expression. I found this on Crazy Wisdom, Co-dependency & Disciple Abuse from an apparently self-proclaimed guru, Oshana. Although I am suspicious about their motives, I certainly think that this one sentence from Oshana sums up my feelings on the matter:

"I am considering my opinion on so-called 'crazy wisdom' teachers. Could they be Liberated? Certainly they and their students might appear `liberated from social etiquette"

Which, indeed, seems to fault both teacher and student.

As far as "crazy wisdom" goes, doesn't life hand us enough twists and turns for us to develop our juggling skills as magicians so that this type of teaching method is certainly redundant? Or could it be that the nature of existence is indeed brutal and these lessons have their place? Which leads me to question the state of mind of such a teacher that indulges in that theory or practice. I mean, Life's tough - buck up is hardly enlightening.


OKay, this has gone on long enough and I have barely responded to half of the things I want to. I shall continue this tomorrow.



Whew!
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:31 / 20.07.04
How does one measure the level of attainment, and the ability to discern karmic ramifications? Through moral conduct? Through academic acheivement?

Good question, May. Before addressing this specifically though, I'd like to offer some more general comments on the subject of "authenticating" those who profess to be 'teachers' or 'initiators'. When I first made contact with a Wiccan high priestess (who subsequently became my first 'teacher') and her Magister, I had no real way of let's say 'assessing' whether or not she was a 'good teacher'. All I had was my largely book-acquired preconceptions, wooly expectations & fantasies about 'finding a teacher'. At this point in my life, I'd only met 2 or 3 other occultists. Later, as I began to move around the UK pagan subculture, I found what a sociologist might term 'peer-to-peer information networks' - more plainly, people know - or know of each other, and if I asked "I'm thinking of joining so-and-so's coven" then someone would at least offer an opinon on the group, it's leaders, etc. It might well be a biased opinion, or based on gossip, but it was at least something to go on. Not long ago I was discussing this issue with Christina Harrington (ex-editor of Pagan Dawn magazine) and she agreed that this was one of the advantages of being involved with the occult as a member of a community (no matter how loose) in the sense that you can 'ask around' before approaching or making a commitment to get involved with a particular individual or group. This is the occult equivalent of say, asking your friends for advice before buying a stereo or selecting an ISP.

I'm just finishing a fascinating book: "Women in Ochre Robes: Gendering Hindu Renunciation" by Meena Khandelwal (SUNY, 2004) - an ethnological study of sannyasinis in which she examines the whole issue of "saintly authenticity". Whilst she argues that there are no objective criteria for distinguishing 'real' saints from 'fakes', what she does assert is that there are discernable, albeit complex patterns in India by which spiritual seekers, and other observers, decide who is, and who is not genuine. She notes that:

It was generally assumed by most people I met that, while the vast majority of sadhus are frauds, geniune saints do exist, and discrimination is required to distinguish between them. Using one's faculty of discrimination means not only comparing one sadhu with another or "shopping around," but also testing them.

She also quotes June McDaniel (another anthropologist who's studied this area as writing:

"All seek someone they can believe in ... but nobody (except a pagal Westerner) would accept a guru without question, any more than one would buy a used car from a lot without question."

I'd heartily reccomend this book to anyone interested in exploring the complex relationship between seeker and saint. She also makes some interesting points about the "mutuality of gurus & disciples" (something which Agehananda Bharati talks about in his book "The Light at the Centre").
 
 
illmatic
08:54 / 20.07.04
To follow on from AoG's point about being involved in a community - if one is involved in any kind of social network with that revolves around a practical function - be it tantra, martial arts or even, I dunno, needlework - if one is in these kind of communities, teaching tends to simply emerge without the formalities of a guru/disciple relationship, through the peer to peer sharing of information and experience. Someone with a certain amount of knowledge/experience becomes a teacher not through their choice, but simply through default - they are selected by their peers, as it were, as a reliable source of information.
 
  
Add Your Reply