Spiritual Masters that aren't Swindlers and Frauds

[Original Poster]

Since there's a thread already focusing on Deepak Chopra, I thought we should turn this around and talking about Masters which are credible. Firstly I'd like to start with Eckhart Tolle since he's also gained a celebrity status thanks to Oprah, just like Chopra. He's written some books and travels the world leading retreats and the like, in fact this last summer he led a retreat at the same center I aspire to work at next year. His books are incredibly powerful, and explain things in ways which are easily digestible. He's also incredibly awkward, and does not come off charismatic in the least. He bores the shit out of people when he speaks but there's a very deliberate and centered way about him which is alluring. Secondly, Thich Naht Hanh is one of the greatest masters on earth today. He runs a retreat center called Plum Village which some of my sangha-mates have been lucky enough to attend. They ascribed it to Buddhist boot camp, and said they took something profoundly life changing from the 3 week experience. Retreat Centers often differ and depend heavily upon who's leading them, but Thich Naht Hanh has been around for a minute and has mastered the process of helping people blossom. He has also written some incredibly profound books. Nextly, Alan Watts is the shit. Everything he says is beautiful and rings true. May he rest in peace. I'll also add Don Miguel Ruiz though I'm a little ambivalent about him. I find his story about his toltec lineage difficult to believe. But that doesn't subtract from the Four Agreements at all, in my opinion. The information is solid, easy to understand and easily utilized in your life to change it into a dramatically happier one. If you are impeccable with your word, if you don't make assumptions, if you take nothing personally and if you always do your best, you can change the world you live in to a personal heaven. It's that simple. Just follow the basics.

[Chimpertainment]

Terrance McKenna

[tropicalbreeze]

Jed Mckenna

[IndieAnthias]

What do you guys think of Ram Dass? He's getting up there in age but he's genuine. I read one book of his, Be Here Now which I enjoyed, lots of nice pictures.

[mcwillis]

Babaji Khoot Humi Guru Dev Paramahansa Yogananda Apollonius of Tyana Sanat Kumara Sri Yukteswar

[DrunkenArse]

Joseph Goldsein is pretty cool.

[apurtell]

I realize this post is a little older but I just stumbled on it. Any thoughts on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev? A few of the names above sound vaguely familiar, but a friend from had me read a book on Sadhguru and I liked it.

[Original Poster]

What is the book called?

[apurtell]

My friend referred "Midnights With a Mystic" by Cheryl Simone and then I read "Mystic's Musings" (not a novel so much as a book of questions answered by Sadhguru) after that one. I really liked both.

[Kuhnada29]

Eckhart Tolle and Abraham Hicks are really good spiritual teachers. Their teachings are simple and to the point, easy to apply/follow, and understand I believe Ancient civilizations like the Egyptians and the Mayans were on a whole other level as being spiritual masters though. They were way more advanced than us spiritually. Actually, both seemed like an entire civilization of eckhart tolls and spiritual masters. They knew about consciousness They did a lot of work with the right-brain/intuitive mind which is why they used symbolic images and glyphs. Some of the work the ancient Egyptians did with images/symbols is highly sophisticated subconscious work and which is why their cultures don't make sense to left-brain analytical thinkers. Experiencing spiritual bliss and raising your vibration/consciousness literally feels like your in another dimension....you have access to higher levels of creativity, peace, wisdom, intuition, empathy, new ideas..i mean it can't be explained..its almost like a dream when you get a group of spiritually evolved people together to start creating things like glyph-languages, channeling positive energy into things like crystals, artwork and even creating a whole culture together ..I just can't even imagine it..those civilizations were in a whole different dimension I went off on kind of a rant here, but It's interesting stuff really, teachings from eckhart tolle, abraham hicks, etc.. are only the beginning

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Most teachers are not swindlers or frauds, even if their understanding is incomplete. Most are actually motivated out of good will to help people. Most of the teachers mentioned I respect. I don't know much about these 'satgurus' but they are traditional teachers that adhere to their traditions rather than preach their own conclusions. I like Adyashanti, I like most Tibetan lamas, I like Sri Nisargadatta. I like Osho although he was both the real deal and a swindler and a fraud, both at the same time! I don't like Gangaji, she is a swindler and a fraud. And the whole 'satsang' circle of people are frauds. I don't like Mooji, I don't think he is a swindler or a fraud but is mistaking sensations for pure awareness. Basically anybody who talks about a 'true self' is confusing sensations with pure awareness, except Sri Nisargadatta. Alan Watts is great! I have never heard any teachings by Babaji and don't even know if there really is such thing as the real Babaji, he might be mythical. I also don't know any teachings by Sri Yukteswar. Well, there is the Kriya yoga which is basically Himalayan tantric kundalini yoga in a Hindu wrapping. But basically most teachers have good intentions. Even enlightened people see things differently and they debate among themselves just as much as ordinary folks do. Because the truth is really beyond human comprehension, so there are practically infinite interpretations possible. Personally I believe Buddhism does the best job at understanding the truth and is the most sophisticated map of consciousness available. But there are even so many different sects of Buddhism that all disagree on tiny little aspects of Buddhism! A good example is the shentong/rangtong debate. The real guru is within and that is who each one should put their faith in. Outer teachers just point to the guru within (if they are genuine). There is an experience that people get confused with final enlightenment, and that is the experience of "I AM Universal Awareness!" It is a very compelling state and the truth of it seems so final, all seeking stops, the limited self disappears, etc... that many teachers are at this level, including Ekhart Tolle. But in Buddhism this isn't even the first degree of enlightenment. This is a transient experience on the path of insight called "The arising and passing away of sensations." The Dark Night of the soul immediately follows this insight, which Ekhart Tolle experienced, but he hasn't reached Stream Entry (the first degree of enlightenment) because he doesn't know that awareness and the present moment are impermanent. After the dark night of the soul, in meditation reality blinks in and out and one sees that awareness is not the ground of being. Many of us have also experienced the Arising and Passing away of sensations during lucid dreams and are now in the Dark Night of the Soul. So it is important in looking for a teacher to see where they are coming from, you don't want to be lead backwards or else you will never get out of the Dark Night. Any teacher who doesn't realize that awareness is empty of inherent reality, any teacher who talks about a 'true self' or awareness is your true self is reifying awareness and still has an identity (self) that they are in bondage to.

[shadowofwind]

How is Gangaji a fraud, as opposed to someone who's understanding is incomplete? I think they're all frauds, in the sense that they claim to know the whole truth when they don't. But I don't see why you single her out.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Well, because her understanding is incomplete, her teacher told her that her understanding was incomplete, but she still 'teaches' watered down feel-good teachings that betray her tradition, and only for money!

[shadowofwind]

She's a fraud by the authority of Papaji? I don't see the essential difference between what she teaches and what Ramana Maharshi taught. And I don't see much difference between teaching for money and accepting food and worship at an ashram. The first Ramana Mahsarshi dialogues I read were in a book called Be As You Are, which seemed good to me at the time. Later I read a different collection of dialogues and there was a lot there that read and vibed like it was corrupted by power, if not as badly as someone like Rajneesh. If you measure what is complete according to the authority of other teachers, then always you find some which are incomplete, and of course they are always competing with each other that way. But I have yet to see a teaching which is self-evidently wrong about something, if you look for it.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Well, it is my personal opinion of Gangaji and I am in no way trying to slander her or anything or convince anybody she is a fraud. I just think she is. I think her realization is a pretty low realization not on the same level as Ramana's. And I think she is teaching ONLY for the money and fame and prestige, not for any other reason whatsoever. She has a house in the town where I lived and I have been in line with her at the food co-op, and I have been to her satsangs and met her back when I was a seeker. But then again I don't think Advaita and especially neo-Advaita is a complete teaching. But this is all just my opinions. No inherent truth in what I am saying.

[shadowofwind]

"But I have yet to see a teaching which is self-evidently wrong about something, if you look for it." I meant to say the opposite, "isn't", not is. What you say about Gangaji seems likely to be true to me, more than just your opinion. Generally speaking, the more information you get about any teacher the uglier it gets. A couple of self-styled sages I've met seem generally concerned with helping people. But when I tried to broach the issue of where their approach might be hurting some people instead of helping, they don't want to look at that at all. Even if I'm wrong, they should still want to consider my argument for a moment, just to make sure. If you tell your doctor that the medicine he prescribed is making you sick, he ought to at least try to understand what you have to say, even if he thinks you're mistaken. If they're not willing to do that, if their image as a messenger of truth is more important, what does their desire to help really amount to then? I got a lot more out of reading Ramana Maharshi than listening to Gangaji tapes, though its hard to say how much that's the depth of their understanding and how much its the way their different minds are filtered by mine. Also I read Maharshi first.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Generally speaking, the more information you get about any teacher the uglier it gets. I bet this is the case with every human being! lol. I don't really care about teachers like I used to. I used to be slightly obsessed with who was a good teacher and who isn't, etc... Now they are just human beings doing what they do in my view. Some just rub me the wrong way, like Gangaji and Adi Da Samraj.

[shadowofwind]

Yeah, Adi Da was a poster boy for New Age ego run amok. I find it hard to believe that intelligent people could read that stuff and take it seriously. Of course all people are flawed, but not all people are claiming to have the ultimate answer to everyone's problems. It would be a different situation if the guru was merely falling a little short of an ideal, or teaching something that's not deeply connected to his own failings. But since he is selling profound personal transformation, ostensibly based on direct knowledge, the nature of his own transformation is critically relevant to the truth of his message. And if he is no more transformed than average people, as measured by his own ostensible values such as objective honesty or compassion, then this shows that his path doesn't work. For instance, in his biography when he was still calling himself Franklin Jones, Adi Da claimed that his ego had died completely. Clearly it didn't, so he was a fraud or at best an utter fool. And this very significantly undermines the authority of his teaching, since he was its principle result.

[TiredPhil]

I realize this post is a little older but I just stumbled on it. Any thoughts on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev? A few of the names above sound vaguely familiar, but a friend from had me read a book on Sadhguru and I liked it. You should check out vids on Google for this man. A very good speaker, but he does not tell everything openly. Has free classes in poor countries. Slightly richer countries, the price goes up. In the USA he charges the most money of all. Sounds unfair, but all the money goes to good causes. You can see he has a lot to tell, but he always holds something back from an answer. Not yet been confused by his sucsess, but he looks to be heading that way - slightly. If you want a spiritual master with a difference, just type "OSHO: Strange Consequences" Now there is a dude with a totally new way of passing on wisdom. Some people are a little shocked when they hear his comments. Try to watch all the 6 mins, then comment please.

[shadowofwind]

I lived in Oregon when Osho had a commune there, back when he was calling himself Rajneesh. His cult was a cesspool of abuse and criminal activity. 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ma Anand Sheela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rajneeshpuram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If your ideal for attaining psychic power involves orgies, fleets of luxury cars, and long white beards, then I recommend ZZ Top as a better alternative.

[TiredPhil]

I lived in Oregon when Osho had a commune there, back when he was calling himself Rajneesh. His cult was a cesspool of abuse and criminal activity. 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ma Anand Sheela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rajneeshpuram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If your ideal for attaining psychic power involves orgies, fleets of luxury cars, and long white beards, then I recommend ZZ Top as a better alternative. Now that is why I joined this forum. In the UK a lot of vids, and details do not come up on Google searches. Tons of information available on here from members. Thanks for the links

[Parousia]

I bet this is the case with every human being! lol. Nah, children are great. A couple of self-styled sages I've met seem generally concerned with helping people. But when I tried to broach the issue of where their approach might be hurting some people instead of helping, they don't want to look at that at all. Even if I'm wrong, they should still want to consider my argument for a moment, just to make sure. If you tell your doctor that the medicine he prescribed is making you sick, he ought to at least try to understand what you have to say, even if he thinks you're mistaken. If they're not willing to do that, if their image as a messenger of truth is more important, what does their desire to help really amount to then? Nice point. Even if the guru's answered your specific concern 1,000 times, what's the point of him/her coming down from a mountain and assimilating into society as a helper or "well-being" mentor if he/she's okay with overlooking even one person's dilemma? (Especially if it concerns how the guru may be hurting others when his very mission is to usher people into peace?) We can consider that maybe the guru didn't want to "spoon-feed" you, but that's no excuse for completely ignoring constructive criticism. The first step to becoming a teacher is realizing you are forever a student, after all; even the wisest can still learn from the young. We become stagnant only after we decide to stop learning... only after we stop listening to what others have to say. If they're not willing to do that, if their image as a messenger of truth is more important, what does their desire to help really amount to then? And I think your point is applicable in all fields, really. If your practice, whether it's an approach to understanding cell regeneration or a philosophy of living for pleasure, is effective enough so that others can repeat it to share your results, it's usually inevitable that you develop a sort of public image as a result because people are curious about origin and enjoy knowing "who's behind an idea", especially a great idea. When knowledge is shared, people like to know its source. We are all messengers of truth in this way because we are always sharing knowledge with each other. And, thus, our lives naturally represent what we've come to understand about the world in both observing it and pursuing our curiosities about it. Because we are thinking beings, an individual's "image" inevitably reflects how we place value on the mind. All people, therefore, are messengers of truth as long as truth is the object of pursuit... as long as it's on the mind, so to speak. The trouble in all of this "sharing of knowledge"--in this grand unfolding of Reason--is keeping our composure in the face of praise (as conceited as that sounds). Positive feedback is undeniably really, really great to receive, since it literally confirms the utility of all your efforts, all of your laboring, and inevitably all of you. Recognition feels so good that it often (quite easily) overwhelms us to the bone, numbing all other senses, including our sense of purpose: for what use do we have without the acknowledgement of others, right? Wrong. Although we leave the womb with hardly any instincts, the few that we have help us survive. Eventually, as we develop into toddlers, we acquire a few additional motivators alongside pure survival, including the attention/praise of our parents. This is never our sole motivator, however; we are multifaceted! Through our ability to simply observe, it seems we are innately curious. Our utility, therefore, is literally self-imposed once we mature out of childhood, once we know the power of our own will. A sage's usefulness as well as anyone else's, thus, can never really be legitimized or confirmed by their "image" because images are empty representations or symbols of something expected to be internalized within a person. In the same regard, receiving recognition for your image alone amounts to nothing either because it is more so a bi-product of what is actually meaningful--that being the applicability of your practice by another person. An example of how significant it is to differentiate between "image" and "person" (of how important it is to be precise with our words) in order to further our overall understanding of the world can be found in the semantic debate about "ego" currently underway in this thread.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

I lived in Oregon when Osho had a commune there, back when he was calling himself Rajneesh. His cult was a cesspool of abuse and criminal activity. 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ma Anand Sheela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rajneeshpuram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If your ideal for attaining psychic power involves orgies, fleets of luxury cars, and long white beards, then I recommend ZZ Top as a better alternative. Hey I live in Oregon! Osho is in a league of his own, defying logic! Some people think that Ma Anand Sheela worked for the CIA. It seems plausible since she was the one responsible for turning the place into a concentration camp cult and the bioterror attack and basically got a slap on the wrist for it and is now successful again doing what she does. It was her idea in the first place to go to Oregon from India. But these things happened under Osho's nose. Yet he was wiretapped and his house bugged as well. The FBI seized the recordings of everything that happened in his house, which he only left once a day, and could not find that he had any knowledge of the criminal stuff going on. The only law that Osho broke was immigration fraud by arranging marriages between Indians and Americans. But that doesn't excuse his collection of Rolls Royces and diamond watches and '70s style science fiction guru robes. But is that a fault? Nothing he did contradicted his teachings. He enjoyed luxury, like a rock star, and he was very open with the fact he saw no reason not to. And his view on sexuality is that we shouldn't be hung up on it and should be free with it if we wanted to. But he went crazy. The paradox is that he went crazy but was still enlightened, but he did go insane. But he did transform the consciousness of the whole planet for the better. But perhaps it went to his head. It is a great story. I would like to see and Oliver Stone movie about it that is as non-biased as possible. The thing with Osho also is that it is impossible to be non-biased about him. Have you noticed that? Everyone who knows about him has an opinion. Personally, I think being a rock-star guru was not good for him, but was good for the planet. At first he was a real guru pretending to be a false guru, but he was seduced by the sex, drugs, and power and adoration. He had very good hypnotic skills.

[tropicalbreeze]

I personally find Osho pretty hilarious.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

I find him hilarious as well. And I think he used jokes as spiritual teachings. The punchline transcends the mind. I also think he had a very very deep insight and his words guided me to cut through a bunch of confusion. I owe a lot to him. And perhaps his life story is what helped me let go of him as well and see through the outer guru and realize the inner guru. And I admire him the way I admire Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Bruce Lee, etc... all of whom were merely humans as well. I admire that he owns his dark side and does not hide it at all and in fact he owns it with style. He never hurt anyone either, and I genuinely feel that he loved and appreciated every single person.