The problem with gurus is that they are not addressing you; they are addressing their own psychology, outwardly projected. Few minds have circumvented this natural blind spot and provided true means for self-understanding instead of a methodology or system of thought (e.g Jung).
-
-
Replying to @mistermircea
I'm going to have to disagree with this. Guru's are not necessarily teachers, (Jung was a teacher) because he had a program and a curriculum which was to be applied. Guru's, on the other hand, are about resonance. so they do break down their own psychology to relate.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dwylson @mistermircea
The etymology of the word Guru itself is Gu= Darkness, Ru= Dispeller: They shed light on their own conscious behaviors and understandings so that others may be enlightened of their own. There may be some Gurus grounded in validation, but the problem is not with Gurus altogether
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dwylson
Your analysis of the guru's process is correct, but it does not invalidate my point. If anything, it validates it. Breaking down your own psychology to relate has its merits but it does not imply anything about an understanding of the other.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mistermircea
I was not trying to invalidate your point at all. I was saying some gurus are both guru and teacher, and some are simply gurus. Teachers make it their priority to generate understanding. The guru depends on shared perspective one guru is not for everyone/thing, hence no "problem"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
While I share your perspective the problem lies in not being aware of what you describe. Some gurus are more persuasive than others, and while helpful to a certain extent, their own self-deception regarding this very matter can prove extremely dangerous.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.