Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00240)

Thoa Tran wrote:

Bjorn:
>>In theory he would transcend the
> >intellect and its attachments, but in actuality he lacks the humility and
> >devotion to do so. His solution is no solution at all. He does not escape the
> >limitations of the intellect but his therapeutic process is based at a subtle
> >intellectual level of denial/nihilism. He believes himself to be free but, IMO,
> >his "freedom" is an intellectual counterfeit, not the real thing.

> Since my exposure to him is through books, I did not pick up any arrogant
> tone.

His arrogance was more obvious in his personal fac-to-face interactions.

> True, he was not devotional, but that would be in line with his
> philosophy of looking within yourself to find the truth, and not rely on
> others for second hand truth.

K has a problem with the Guru thing. He is acting as a Guru to thousands of
people, yet denying the value or need for the Guru. A Guru is a teacher who have
attained levels of realization that the students yet have not attained. He/she
can help the student find the truth within, by being an example, by providing
assistance in maintaining the right vibration; a vibration that is compatible
with the real self. The real self of the teacher is one with the real self of
the student. The teacher can help by pointing the student in the right
direction. Yes the student has to do the work himself and cannot use the Guru as
a replacement for his real self, but having the Guru can nevertheless be of
enormous help in avoiding pitfalls and getting there faster.

K's illogical denial of the Guru idea is based on intellectual pride and the
denial of the value of those who have helped him get to where he got. With the
correct understanding of the Guru there is never the question of second hand
truth, only the acceptance of assistance in finding it within.

> All a teacher can do is point the way. The right
> teacher will show you your own ladder to climb. I don't think K would have
> the arrogance to tell you what the solution is, but he will tell you to be
> aware. By being aware, you can find the solution that is right for you.

He is telling me a lot more, though. He says that he has attained freedom and he
is obviously trying to help me realize what he has realized. Why would he
otherwise spend his life teaching? He has the solution and he is hoping to help
me find it, too. But I find his solution to be incomplete in a very serious way.
He is lacking the humility and devotion necessary for ultimate surrender of the
lower impermanent aspects of personality - his freedom does not transcend the
intellect, but only reaches the most subtle levels thereof. I admit that I
cannot rove this statement, it is the result of my experiments with his "path"
and other personal experience.

If you manage to understand K you will reach high levels of consciousness, but
not freedom.

> The masses are more interested in being self-sufficient
> psychologically and are more interested in relating to each other, rather
> than some spiritual entity.

The question is: Self-sufficient based on what self? I think K's teachings of
self-sufficiency appeals to the pride of the lower ego and therefor can be quite
appealing.

> At some point of spiritual development, you would have to go beyond the
> intellectual process. I do not follow one philosophy exactly. I take and
> leave what works for me. Strangely, his philosophy of awareness, as long
> as I don't get caught up in the logic of it but FEEL it, makes me see my
> environment in an almost magical way. When I carry that into my
> meditation, I sometimes have amazing experiences.

With this I will not argue. You may not have the weaknesses that K had and may
very well be doing better than he did!

--
Bjorn