On Gurus, Gods, and Enlightenment

WARNING: Long Article Ahead. Please get comfortable.

I believe I've made it clear how much I respect the Dalai Lama; it was he who got me interested in Buddhism, actually. Although I don't define myself, formally, as a Buddhist -- I like "pagan with Buddhist tendencies" -- I do appreciate the messages His Holiness puts forth.

I have to be honest: despite the fact that I was raised a devout Catholic (I'm talking OLD SCHOOL, vespers in Latin, priest facing the altar and not the congregation, no meat on Fridays Catholicism), and respect Christ and His Teachings (and yes, I do believe He is some aspect of Deity -- God, if you like -- but that doesn't make him any less so than, say, Tenzin Gyazo), I would sooner drill my eardrums out with a rusty fork than hear ANYTHING Pope Adolf Hit--I mean, Pope BENEDICT has to say.

(I respected PJPII, but I get such an EVIL vibe from Benedict it's not even funny...)

Anyway, so the Dalai Lama, speaking of the importance of the guru, said: "Rely on the teachings to evaluate a guru: Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism." He also observed that the term 'living Buddha' is a translation of the Chinese words huo fuo. In Tibetan, he said, the operative word is lama which means 'guru'. A guru is someone who is not necessarily a Buddha, but is heavy with knowledge.

Let's review this:
RELY ON THE TEACHINGS TO EVALUATE A GURU. What I think the Dalai meant to say here is that we shouldn't rely on WHO is teaching us something, but WHAT the message is. Moreover, the value of the teacher (guru, whatever) should be determined by the value of his teachings.

You know that old saying, "When the student is ready, the master appears"? I think that we rely too much on all of our lessons being feel-good lessons -- sometimes, the most important lessons are PAINFUL ones.

Let me give you an example (using my own personal experience). On June 21, 2007, I had an accident. A pretty bad accident. Having not eaten the whole day, stressed out from work, and troubled from other incidents, I passed out and went face-forward into the concrete.
You have to understand: this is in NYC.
Needless to say, because I didn't put my hands out to break my fall, I face-planted onto the concrete, breaking my nose, my chin, my cheekbones, three vertebrae in my neck, and knocking out four of my teeth. When I was getting teeth implants, I managed to also break my jaw (and the hits just kept on coming!), leaving me incapable of eating. I went from about 125 lbs. (on a 5-foot-9 frame, that's already on the thin side) to 97 lbs. because I was unable to eat. 

(Don't worry -- I'm fine now -- all's healed, teeth replaced with implants, and my smile is better than ever...and I'm back up to 115 lbs., weightlifting and running every day to keep my strength up...)

On the surface, one might think, "Oh, how terrible!" And, let me be the one to tell you, I've never experienced pain like that before (and never want to again).

But rather than mull about, wondering "Why me?", I took the time to figure out what the lesson was in that fall.

And I realized the message that was there: everything in my life was in turmoil and chaos -- and was, basically, wrong. Wrong job (I was at a job, though in the music business, that was paying me $7 an hour BEFORE taxes -- and I have a master's degree, soon-to-be PhD). Wrong relationship (the gentleman I was dating, unbeknownst to me, had FIVE other girlfriends -- none of us knew about the others until it all blew up in his face -- one of whom he was using for free room and board, which shouldn't have been necessary if his claim of "I make $81K a year" was correct [which it wasn't]. This was, of course, all while he still wasn't legally divorced...). Wrong method of thinking (prior to that, my mode of thinking was "hang'em all, and let the Gods sort them out.").

In other words, the lesson was, "Re-evaluate your life, get your priorities in order, stop screwing around with things that don't matter, trust yourself to achieve all that you've ever wanted and more, and stop worrying about what everyone else thinks."

Hey, I say, if you're going to have a teacher of any kind, there is no greater one than The Universe.
And the lesson of The Universe?
ALL things -- good, bad, indifferent -- are there to teach us something.
Take each lesson as that: a lesson.

DO NOT HAVE BLIND FAITH, BUT ALSO NO BLIND CRITICISM. I'll be honest: I'm skeptical of people who claim to be gurus, and especially when they claim to know *THE* Way to Enlightenment (as opposed to *A* Way). This is also why I have no love for fundamentalist Christians -- aside from the fact that the word "fundamentalist" has its roots in the Latin word fundus, which means "bottom," they certainly are a hateful, judgemental bunch for people proclaiming to be followers of a guru whose primary messages were Love Thy Neighbor and Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged -- or fundamentalist ANYTHING, for that matter.

At the same time, I cannot sit here and say "that wo/man's crazy" or "s/he's a cult leader" or anything else. Why? Because, however corrupted their message may be -- and however their personalities may not "jive" with ours -- the one thing all gurus ("real" or "fake") have in common is that their messages are all based in Truth. And besides, if the Path all leads up to the same spot at the top of the Mountain, who am I to judge? (Remember what I said about fundamentalists?)

For example...let's take Andrew Cohen (put down your blasters, folks).
Now, I don't exactly remember how, precisely, his name came across my desk (as my profile indicates, I'm a journalist -- I get so many stories, and so many names, on so many different days, you're lucky if I remember my mother's name come 5:00 p.m.), but it did, and I decided to go digging around (what kind of journalist would I be if I didn't do my research?).

On one hand, you have his acolytes who proclaim to have achieved Enlightenment (way to go, cats and kittens). And his teachings and dialogues (at least from what I can tell) encourage understanding between people, especially of different ideologies, to achieve a greater good.
Well, that's certainly better than what I was brought up with -- repent or you're going to Hell, go to Church or you're going to Hell, confess your sins to the Priest or you're going to Hell...

On the other hand, you have his detractors, who accuse him of destroying psyches and swindling money and doing everything short of raping children (don't even get me started on that one) and eating puppies.
Mainly, however, the contention seems to be that Cohen's means and methods rank up there with other cult leaders of the past, a la Koresh and Jones, because he uses tools such as psychological manipulation, emotional abuse, and in some cases physical torture, to achieve his goals of "devotion."

Yikes.

Let's reiterate what His Holiness said: No blind faith, no blind criticism.
 
Can I state, for certain, that Cohen does these things? No, I cannot. After all, I've not been to any of his speaking engagements, or whatever you want to call them.
And I, for one, am tired of all the pop-psychology, I'm-OK-you're-OK, coddling of spoiled and entitled and overgrown kids crap. In fact, psychologists themselves believe that the I'm-OK-you're-OK belief system creates more problems than solves them.
Finally, from what I've experienced, and from what I've read and researched,  ALL belief systems have some form of basis in what others may view as "torture."

This includes my beloved Paganism -- what, you thought my Initiation was all flowers and bunnies? I'm sure had an outsider seen what was going on, they'd demand for my Lady's head on a silver platter. I'm sure I don't even need to tell my fellow Pagans what happens when an inexperienced witch -- what I affectionately refer to as "mall Wiccans" -- calls upon a God/dess that is out of her spiritual scope (i.e., Kali'ma, Hecate, Themis).

Or, what about Judaism -- I'm sure we've all heard our share of jokes about the moyle and the bris. I'm not a boy, but I'm sure I can safely say that practice ranks up there in torturous methods. I mean, really -- cutting off a part of the penis, with no anaesthesia, on a BABY? Yet, I've not met a Jew -- devout or lapsed -- that didn't cite that as part and parcel of their faith system. Why aren't moyles refered to as "barbarians"? Because their belief system has greater numbers of acolytes?

Even something as mundane as the military can be viewed as "torture" -- my cousin Gennaro (Jerry) served FIVE tours of duty since the Iraq War began (he's in California now, praise all Gods), and is a pretty high ranking officer in the Army. Regardless of how I feel about the war, I'm proud of him -- but when I heard the sorts of things he was subjected to when he first enlisted, I was stunned silent. It comes down to this: most civilians are not prepared for what those responsibilities entail, and the superiors sometimes need to "break" the soldiers before they're able to "build them up again."
(You can see where I'd draw the analogy to my accident...)
So my question is, how is what Cohen does any different?

As for the contention that Cohen "destroys" egos? I'm of the belief that, if you're a strong person, with a firm sense of Self, NO ONE -- mortal or divine -- can "break" you, brainwash you, or anything of the sort. If you're "broken," or can be, it is YOU who allows yourself to be such, and it is up to YOU to change that (if, indeed, you want to).

The most extreme case in point: Nelson Mandela. A quarter-century in jail later, and still he held firm to his anti-apartheid stance. Of course, countless Catholic saints, Dalai Lamas, Prisoners of War, and the like fall into this category of "unbreakable spirits."

A more mundane, less extreme example can be found in my father: whenever Jehovah's Witnesses come to his door, after they ask him if he's found Jesus, his answer remains the same: a gentle, "Look, I respect your beliefs, and I ask that you respect mine. I'm a Catholic. Would you like a bottle of water before you go?" I've seen him do this for the past 30 years of my life -- why they keep coming back is anyone's guess. Maybe for the free water. 
(Would it be that I were as kind...)

HOWEVER -- and this is important to note -- if what Cohen's detractors say about his belief that he, and he alone, is God is correct, that's when I call for a detraction. (Again, I state: I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS CORRECT. IF IT'S NOT, FINE. BUT IF IT IS...)

You see, Christians don't believe Jesus is God -- He is the SON OF God. For all His power, and for the love in His teachings, even He knew that there was Something -- Someone -- greater than Him. His Humanity helped Him realize His Divinity -- but His Divinity made him realize His Humanity, as well.
His Holiness Dalai Lama was made so not because he IS Buddha, but because he is no longer bound by Samsara, and his behavior is Buddha-like. Furthermore, His Holiness is, by his definition, the embodiment of COMPASSION.

And those are just two examples -- even Paganism, for all that's it's defined as a "sect" (even though it's been around longer than JudeoChristianity -- which annoys me to no end), tells us that though we may take the God/dess within us, and become as such in ritual or practice, we ARE NOT, and never will be, the God/dess whom we call upon. (Though should that opportunity arise, I have dibs on being Selket/Sekhmet...)

There is a difference between being aware of the Divinity within yourself, and worshipping another Human Being (by definition, fallible) as Divinity. The former is an expansion of Self -- the latter, an expansion of ego.
I think Cohen has the right idea about ego -- not "ego" in the psychological sense, but "ego" in the commonly accepted sense of "big head/rock star/god in his own mind" sense -- as something that's to be destroyed, something that should be shed in the quest for Enlightenment. However, if he is stating that he, and he alone, is the sole arbiter of Enlightenment, I ask: isn't that feeding the ego that he asks others to shed? So it's do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do? Hmm. And what happens, then, when he's no longer around? Who becomes God then?

Again, I reiterate to all: I take no side in this debate. I, rather, post both sides and allow others to sort them out. And regardless of what I do (or don't) believe, know that I've never been one to drink the first glass of Kool-Aid to come my way.

Regardless of what the "real deal" is, however, the main point is clear: Rely on the teachings. No blind faith, no blind criticism.

I always worry about situations such as these on the Internet, really, because they lend themselves to certain abuses. Because the Internet allows us a certain cloak of anonymity, we have the ability to say WHAT we want, WHEN we want, with little or no regard for others and/or the repercussions.
It's in this disinformation that we run into trouble.

You see, I think the lesson for everyone involved -- and anyone who reads this article, or any others on here or elsewhere -- is that everyone is entitled to his/her beliefs, when it is just THAT, and stated as such: beliefs.
You are, for example, entitled to have the belief that I am a total raging bitch.
You wouldn't be the first to think so, and you won't be the last.
I don't believe you're right, of course -- but I don't believe you shouldn't have the right to think it, and I certainly don't believe that your belief changes what I believe is the Truth.

And others are entitled to take exception to one person's beliefs by stating their own (as I've just done).

Where we run into trouble is in two areas:
1) when we comingle belefs with things stated as fact when they are clearly NOT fact, but merely opinion, guesses, or worse, disinformation, and

2) while the internet provides a certain cloak of anonymity, WITH that anonymity comes a great responsibility to think carefully, post even MORE carefully, and avoid stating "facts" when, indeed, they are not.
 

And while I am all for speaking for those who have no voice, and defending the powerless against those vultures who prey upon them, I also think it weak, a display of lack of intellect, and an incapability to discuss points and opinions clearly when someone descends to name-calling, threats or character assassination in order to attack another person.

You don't have to believe what Cohen -- or the Dalai Lama -- or Christ -- or Isis -- or any other avatar teaches, but you ALSO don't have the right to point an accusatory finger and say "This is wrong" or "That is right" simply because you dis/agree with what s/he teaches.
If it works for Cohen's followers, or it works for Xenu acolytes, or it works for initiated Pagans, or it works for devout Catholics, who are we -- as Human Beings -- to deny anyone the right to follow their own Path to the top of the Mountain, and respect it as such?

The exception I take (and it is conditional, that is to say, it only exists if I know for a fact that it is true, and see it with my own eyes) is not with Cohen's beliefs (which, on their face, are pretty amazing), but rather the statement of "fact" that "he believes he is God."
Has anyone, objectively (that is, non-acolyte, non-detractor, neutral ground and reporting FACTS), gone into his speeches and listened, and subsequently heard him say as much? No? Then who are you to say as much? It's a big leap to say "he thinks he's God" from "I don't agree with what he says."
It's that kind of thinking that leads to persecutions, Salem Witch Trials, Inquisitions, Slavery, Subjugation, The Crusades, and -- of course -- The Burning Times.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said in an oft-quoted and very sage opinion, the notion of free speech brings with it a very solemn responsibility, and the right to absolute free speech does NOT and will NEVER give someone the right to yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater.
So, before you yell "Fire!," make sure Babylon (or Waco, or whatever) is burning.

As Humans, we often forget that within each of us shines a Light -- a Light that leads us to the Path of Divinity as we see it -- a Light that leads us to the top of the Mountain -- a Light that should always guide us, help us seek Truth and Enlightenment, show Compassion, feel Love for all sentient Beings, and seek Human Understanding beyond Ego.
In so doing, we forget that God (in whatever form you see Him/Her/It) is within us all.