Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00279)

Thoa Tran wrote:

> The pervasive idea was that in order for
> spiritual growth to occur, you have to have a teacher-chela relationship.

And the idea of the Guru - chela relationship was clearly subscribed to by K and
M, as well as the other adepts behind the TS. When K turned against the
guru-chela relationship he turned against his own teachers/gurus and the plan he
was a part of.

> I'm sure that due to such an environment, there were
> probably a lot of abuse of power going on. K was there to say, stop, think
> about this, this does not have to be, you can believe in yourself, you
> don't have to give your power to somebody else and the power can be all
> yours.

You are probably right that K saw misuse of "guru" power, as well as misuse of
the discipleship role. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a good
solution, though.

>
> A Guru has a much stronger hold. From what I've
> heard of some Guru-Chela relationship, it requires a total devotion to the
> Guru,

I remember reading some interesting passages by K in the Mahatma letters, about
the guru-chela relationship. Perhaps I should try to find them. His statements
did confirm some of what you say about the "strong" position of the Guru.

to the point where the Chela will follow the Guru wherever the Guru
> goes, and unquestionably follows the advice of the Guru. Guru-ship has a
> separation factor. The followers are all in one narrow circle with the
> Guru as the center. With that, self-generated experiences and ideas can
> occur, whether it is true or not. Following a Guru does not necessarily
> help you get rid of your lower ego factor. Guruship also drew narcissitic
> people intent on "spiritualizing" themselves.
>
> Since my study focus has been on concepts and not history, I'm not sure
> about K's relationship to his devotees. I wonder whether he was waited on
> hand and foot by devotees as Llhem said.

Maybe Govert or someone else who has been closer to K can enlighten us?

> I cannot dispute your personal experiences with K's philosophy. Each
> person has to find what is best for him/her. If K's philosophy did not
> work for you, then it was best to find something else.

I guess we can argue about this forever, only that you are far too nice for that
being any fun for me. I actually think K's "therapeutic method" worked quite
well for me. But I didn't like the results. The bottom line is that my
conclusion is that K is not in the "right" place as far as consciousness and
vibration. He is not in sync with the cosmic order, to put it bluntly.

> For some others,
> however, it was highly fulfilling, or else he would not have followers.

There are many pretty strange gurus and leaders who have plenty of followers,
all the way to a Hitler and other Black magicians. Many of their followers would
say that being such is "highly fulfilling", so that does not prove too much.

> The self-sufficiency part may be appealing to the lower ego, but it is also
> a defensive measure against any claim of power of others over the self.

Ultimately we make something our God. Following K's teachings, what would it be?

> >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!
>
> You know that HPB was supposed to come back sometime about now.
> Well...ahem...;o)

You DEFINITELY seem to lack many of the undesirable traits of HPB. Try again!

Bjorn

Peter R. Calvert | There are no second-hand adepts!
pcalvert@hort.cri.nz | Joy Mills. T.S.