I would never ever trust a guru whose human flaws weren’t evident

Andy Smith Says: December 27th, 2006 at 8:30 pm The problem is, anyone can claim experiences that are not found in second hand sources,but just because they aren’t, there is no way of validating the experiences. I have had many experiences that I am quite sure are authentic, but I don’t ask anyone to believe me just because I say so. One difference between mine and Aurobindo’s is that I can give very specific descriptions of experiences that occur on the way to realization. I don’t see a lot of this in Aurobindo’s writings. Most of his writings seem to be couched in very broad and abstract generalizations. As I have said before, the devil is in the details. Show me someone who can provide details of experiences, no matter how much limited by language, and I will listen. But even then, most such descriptions have been recorded by individuals in extreme isolation, who didn’t seem to understand that awakening is an external as well as internal process.

Your very use of “intermediate zone gurus” suggests to me that you are a priori buying into Aurobindo’s scheme, and then using it to invalidate anyone whom, according to that scheme, is not enlightened. I could always claim that I have found a scheme in which the highest state described by Aurobindo is just another intermediate way station. As I said before, this strikes me as a game of “my highest state is higher than your highest state”. Adi Da, of course, loved to play this game. Non-duality seems to offer a way out of this bind, but that of course is hardly original with Aurobindo.

Any alleged guru has people who have known him/her who are prepared to praise him/her to the skies...The distinction you are missing here is necessary vs. sufficient. Lots of authorities don’t abuse their position. The Pope doesn’t. Does that make him enlightened? Aurobindo’s disciple Chaudhuri didn’t. Did that make him enlightened? Is someone a great President or great leader because he doesn’t abuse his position? I would say that is a necessary basic quality, hardly evidence by itself of great leadership or knowledge. Tendency to abuse is largely a personal trait. Many people are relatively free of it, that doesn’t mean they have some special knowledge. Some people have to struggle with it, and I will grant you, with great spiritual powers come great temptations. Being able to master these temptations I think is valid evidence of some kind of knowledge, but if you don’t know how much power the person has, you aren’t in a position to gauge how great are the temptations he/she must deal with.

Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for Aurobindo. I certainly have no problem with discussion of his ideas on the forum, and if they are inspiring to you and others, more power to all of you. But in this area, I think anyone can and should be criticized. As Joe says, “If it were possible to define “perfect,” then I think it’s safe to say there’s never been a fully perfect human being in every sense, horizontal and vertical, every stage/state/line, etc. For me, it only makes sense to talk about gradations of human development and persons on paths, not enlightened beings.” And: “I would NEVER ever trust a guru whose human flaws weren’t evident, because that would surely be a sign that they are psychologically disassociated beings, not enlightened.” Ken, of course, has made this point many times.

Tusar N. Mohapatra Says: December 27th, 2006 at 11:05 pm Sri Aurobindo’s details of experiences are available in his two volumes of “Record of Yoga.”