GENIUS FORUMS

The latest show is now available. Gurus; teacher-student dynamics and more!

The Purpose of Gurus

The show goes on over an hour, but ends rather abruptly midway through one of David's words. This is both on the Listen Now, and the download. Did you post the right version?

The problem is fixed. The whole show is now up there.

Long-time members will recall Philip Mistlberger from his time here on Genius Forum several years ago. He was a good poster back then, and he is an interesting guest on the show. He is well-read and has a lot of experience in spiritual or "trans-personal" counseling. He was also part of the Orange People community in Oregon in the mid-80s under Bagwan Sri Rashneesh, or "Osho" as he later came to be called.

-

Although the whole show is now up there, I must admit that I am still having no success in downloading the full show. It looks like the server we are using is still playing up.

-

All in all a decent show. Philip is the best guest yet. Good job, moderators, keeping the discussion moving, though not too briskly. This show benefited from the extra length.

I had to laugh at Philip's idea of purified philosophy being impractical. That "idealism is unrealistic". What a self-contradicting attitude.

Another dead ringer for this transpersonal therapist --- paid by clients who are typically uninterested in enlightenment, and more interested in love --- was that David's uncompromising approach (to enlightening the highest-calibre strange fish in his net) is "overmasculinised", because it "disassociates from the body" and lacks "empathy" and "connection" with "lower people".

Helping the "masses" via exoteric teaching, seems to keep Philip in clover.

I thought this was a better quality podcast than the others. David and Dan seemed to be on the ball more. The interrogation at 1:00:00 and afterwards was great stuff. I enjoyed it even more than the Tao one. Down-going with a puke-coloured face.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:I had to laugh at Philip's idea of purified philosophy being impractical. That "idealism is unrealistic". What a self-contradicting attitude.

Another dead ringer for this transpersonal therapist --- paid by clients who are typically uninterested in enlightenment, and more interested in love --- was that David's uncompromising approach (to enlightening the highest-calibre strange fish in his net) is "overmasculinised", because it "disassociates from the body" and lacks "empathy" and "connection" with "lower people".

Helping the "masses" via exoteric teaching, seems to keep Philip in clover.

I thought this was a better quality podcast than the others. David and Dan seemed to be on the ball more. The interrogation at 1:00:00 and afterwards was great stuff. I enjoyed it even more than the Tao one. Down-going with a puke-coloured face.

-

Great....ok...we...

Don't worry about it. All down-going is tinged with a bit of puke.

Ego is a hunger. But a psychological hunger, rather than a biological one. The eating is really thinking: thinking either one type of food, or a different type of food. One cannot stop eating, but one can learn to eat differently.

There's nausea at one type of food, but also nausea on subsisting on another. So one learns to eat and nibble, and finally take enlightenment as one's staple diet.

But there's quite a bit of puking along the way.

-

Philip was an interesting case in that he knew very well how to play the idealism card when needed. I was expecting to have a far more "combative" dynamic with him but it just didn't turn out that way. It was quite interesting speaking to him because I knew intuitively there was something wrong, but it was actually difficult to manifest that feeling without becoming gratuitously accusatory.

I like David's approach. When a guest utters something (usually insane), David just utters a sane view of affairs, without making any effort to fashion it as a response. It sounds as though he's in a completely different conversation.

While it looks like he doesn't bother to teach, or to communicate, or to correct the guest's understanding, in fact, he is speaking directly to the listener. As if the guest is a specimen that needs to be translated.

Occasionally, he actually "interacts" with the guest, such as to interrogate.

Everything is "accusatory", but only a thoughtful guest would be able to hear it.

-

Well, that's true. We're not motivated by any notion of changing the mind of the guests; it's all about the offering of contrasting perspectives. It was just a bit harder than I was expecting to find that contrast with Philip. I actually have some sympathy for the idea that guys like him have a role to play in the scheme of things.

In the scheme of wisdom, what role does he play?

If 90% of people come into a course he offers on enlightenment, and say, "Ah well, I now see that I'm interested in love, and to hell with enlightenment", then Philip has assisted them to feel comfortable with that decision.

What good is that?

-

It could be argued that he deals with the animal types who could be reborn into the human realm. We mostly ignore them. It could be argued, I'm just not really sure how strongly.

He's as helpful as a chaplain selling Jesus to drug addicts. It might be socially helpful to give the drug addict some ideals, so he might not kill and murder to support his addiction.

But how many potential Buddhas come across Philip and his ilk, who are like the straw that broke the camel's back, which finally bends them into world-weary conformity? He does sell himself as a teacher of enlightenment, you know. He's like a woman's version of enlightenment --- and, oh, how widespread this view of enlightenment is. "Too hard, unrealistic, puritanical, ascetic, disembodied, idealistic, overmasculinised, neurotic, fundamentalist............."

-

Kelly Jones wrote:He's as helpful as a chaplain selling Jesus to drug addicts.

That's the feeling I got, but it was a hard feeling to "sell". We'll have to leave that to the intuition of the listener.

It might be socially helpful to give the drug addict some ideals, so he might not kill and murder to support his addiction.

What would have said to Philip, Kelly?

But how many potential Buddhas come across Philip and his ilk, who are like the straw that broke the camel's back, which finally bends them into world-weary conformity?

I think I just said that's not the role he plays in the scheme of things.

He does sell himself as a teacher of enlightenment, you know.

Actually, he does not sell himself as that.

He's like a woman's version of enlightenment --- and, oh, how widespread this view of enlightenment is. "Too hard, unrealistic, puritanical, ascetic, disembodied, idealistic, overmasculinised, neurotic, fundamentalist............."-

This is his problem - he wants to be something useful to everyone -but it doesn't works that way.

Even though Philip isn’t really ‘helping’ the masses, as most of these people aren’t going to change significantly, one could make an argument that having such a daily schedule is actually healthy for him, as it prevents him from slipping into bad habits, and it keeps his mind fairly active. At least cultivating a teacher’s daily habits keeps him behaving in a way that is relatively aligned with the source. Phil may have his imperfections, but he seems like the wisest speaker thus far on the Reasoning Show.

So I’m more concerned with the affect on Phil, than what he actually does for anybody else.

For instance: If he weren’t teaching on a daily basis, what would he be doing? Sitting home doing absolutely nothing, and therefore the chances of some sort of negative neurological pattern developing is drastically increased.

It doesn’t matter how strong the intellect is, the body is very weak to being conditioned in negative ways, and it can be very difficult to break free from the various types of conditioning because it alters the way the body is functioning on all levels.

So substituting one behavior for a less negative one is a possible solution.

Dan Rowden wrote: K: He's as helpful as a chaplain selling Jesus to drug addicts.

D: That's the feeling I got, but it was a hard feeling to "sell". We'll have to leave that to the intuition of the listener.

Why was it hard to express the truth that expressing un-truth (dilutions of truth) is exactly that?

K: It might be socially helpful to give the drug addict some ideals, so he might not kill and murder to support his addiction.

D: What would have said to Philip, Kelly?

Privately I'd say to Philip, if I were a Reasoning Show host, that if he has "passed through the gateway of Enlightenment" (ie. is not still stepping through), as he has claimed in the past, his main focus as a teacher of Enlightenment should be on people with high capacity for the same. Because that's the most effective use of his time.

Publicly, i.e. on a podcast, I'd say that the most effective use of one's time as a teacher of Enlightenment, is to find students of high capacity. It is like using a huge irrigation pump-and-spray system, rather than one human with a water bucket. Each "plant" in the field being a baby irrigation pump-and-spray system, if it gets enough water.

K: But how many potential Buddhas come across Philip and his ilk, who are like the straw that broke the camel's back, which finally bends them into world-weary conformity?

D: I think I just said that's not the role he plays in the scheme of things.

You're saying he never intended to help people out of delusion?

K: He does sell himself as a teacher of enlightenment, you know.

D: Actually, he does not sell himself as that.

I assumed that a person who offers a course about enlightenment, as he says on the podcast, and who takes the name "teacher", which he also says on the podcast, is also a teacher of enlightenment.

K: He's like a woman's version of enlightenment --- and, oh, how widespread this view of enlightenment is. "Too hard, unrealistic, puritanical, ascetic, disembodied, idealistic, overmasculinised, neurotic, fundamentalist............."

D: This is his problem - he wants to be something useful to everyone -but it doesn't works that way.

Yes, I think you're right there. He wants everyone to agree with him. A "religious moderate" says that non-attachment and attachment are practically the same thing ---- not.

-

I'd say, "Good going, Philip. I'm glad you're helping people."

Kelly, why is it the duty of every person 'in the know' to only seek out the highest capacity students. "Maximum efficiency" is not a sufficient answer. It is not everybody's calling to be maximally efficient. Nor is it every teacher's calling to teach at the college or post-graduate level. There is a place for every sort of teacher, even those who choose to teach children their ABC's.

Carl G wrote: I'd say, "Good going, Philip. I'm glad you're helping people."

I'm not glad you're being mediocre.

Kelly, why is it the duty of every person 'in the know' to only seek out the highest capacity students.

For maxiumum efficiency.

"Maximum efficiency" is not a sufficient answer.

'T'is to me.

It is not everybody's calling to be maximally efficient.

True, the dead have also been called to be dead.

Nor is it every teacher's calling to teach at the college or post-graduate level.

A college professor doesn't teach a baby how to suck milk. Paraplegics are not taught how to fight bushfires. A billion-dollar rocket-ship isn't for visiting the supermarket.

There is a place for every sort of teacher, even those who choose to teach children their ABC's.

There are ABC's in enlightenment, but not every child is capable of understanding them.


-

^^^Nice reply.

^^^Nice reply.

What did you like about it?

Hey Carl: I think it's a terrible squandering of potential if an enlightened person is doing therapy that a normal psychologist could do.

He's another one of these people that make up the vast web that misleads sincere seekers: the network of teachers and organizations that claim to know what enlightenment is... but obviously don't.

I was a bit confused by his description of "the enlightened relationship" wherein the woman gets pulled back down, and then the man has to hold her up, because he's reaching for the sky or whatever. So the man has the responsibility, and the woman is dependent on the man. Right. And they are both enlightened. Right.

I noticed on several occasions that after Dan or David really challenged him, he start speaking with this funny submissive tone in his voice. Sort of backpedaling, as if he was softening his statements to try to fit in more with their views. To me, that's evidence of his desire for widespread agreement - akin to the religious impulse.

I think "pleasing people" is a strong part of his agenda. He has a sort of "nice guy" syndrome happening.

How much harm has been done in the name of niceness!?! I guess if I spent 7 years as an orange-people-person, I might be a little too warm and fuzzy also.

What's with this idea that you can help people along, or be a guidepost along the path, or be a finger pointing at the moon, when you aren't DONE yourself? I wish people would stop doing that. If you can't do, teach? What a horrible way to compromise.