Generally a guru should be of the 20th century for there to be enough reliable reports

Andy Smith Says: May 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm There is the problem of practice, of trying to realize higher consciousness, and there is a different though not completely unrelated problem of convincing others of its reality...This really is an answer to Alan, who following Aurobindo claims that there are levels of consciousness or being that are completely divorced from the physical world. As I have pointed out to him, this seems like dualism, and runs into exactly the problem posed by Greg and Marko. If consciousness is completely independent of the physical world, how can we as physical, verbal, intellectual, contextual beings know about it? (And the problem is further complicated by Aurobindo, who claims that this consciousness can “descend” to the physical world and transform it).

alan kazlev Says: May 4th, 2007 at 8:30 pm Just briefly - too many issues to comment on
Edward said: the finger and the moon are “not two” so that without the finger the moon doesn’t exist!
Actually it does. The Absolute exists even without the relative (phenomenal). But the reverse is not the case.
Greg’s reply (just a few comments) The movie Contact.

Yes I noticed the same thing; the whole thing is presented as ametaphor for transcendtal experience etc. People who claim to channel extraterrestrial beings, ascended masters, etc etc, and cosmology inculding alternate and parallel universes, and so on. Fascinating subjects, but I’d rather wait to write about this in my books!

Does a spiritual person’s behavior provide compelling evidence of some kind of exceptional transcendent experience? In the case of Aurobindo, Wilber, Cohen, and many others there appears to be significant evidence that they operate on a level that remains in many ways still “all too human” and in that sense unexceptional.
With KW and Cohen, and many other gurus, I have also arrived at this conclusion, although I do not deny their experiences. I have often commented on this, explaining it in terms of the Sri Aurobindo’s reference to “the intermediate zone”. Greg, I’m surprised to find Sri Aurobindo mentioned in your list. Perhaps you can give me examples of in what way his behaviour is “all too human”.

I define an authentic guru as not only having and to some extent transmitting to others (via their presence or a photo etc) transcendent knowledge, but also being totally non-abusive in every way. The following gurus are included in those who by their words and presence have enlightened consciousness, and also are non-abusive - Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, The Mother, Nityananda, Nisargadatta. If you know of any abusive, egotistic, manipulative, emotionally, sexually, or financially exploitative actions any one of those individuals has done, I would be most interested in hearing about it!

There are also historical figures like Buddha, Jesus, Plotinus, Rumi, Francis of Assisi, Baal Shem Tov, etc, etc, but it is harder to verify their authenticity because of the huge amount of myth-making that has developed around them. Even with Ramakrishna it is difficult (there are two very different biographies on him; perhapos the truth is somewhere in between); generally a guru should be of the 20th century for there to be enough reliable reports.