| Dave K 2006-07-30, 8:26 am |
|
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-07-29 14:45:50 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
> I know people who were with him when he was just a poor guru type in
> India. He did seem well intended. Though does not appear too good at
> running organizations. There is a philosopher named Ken Wilber who has
> an interesting take on this phenomenon. He has a theory we don't
> simply develop and grow along one line. Some may have great
> development in the area of spiritual awareness, but not be developed in
> other lines. Like having great people skills, or business acumen.
> Wilber uses as an example the mad scientist, who may be very advanced
> in scientific applications but is fixated as a sociopath in other areas.
>
> The late Ram Dass told a story of a monk he met in Asia who wanted to
> burn himself in political protest. After some time talking to the monk
> Mr. Dass learned that the monk fell in love with a women who visited
> the monastery and he could not deal with this love. It was then that
> he realized that the Buddhist path does not fully respond to all
> psychology. He made it his life's goal to integrate western psychology
> with eastern practices.
>
> This skepticism towards gurus does not mean we throw the baby out with
> the bathwater. Guru's are humans as well. Even though there are
> clearly flaws in some of the Indian holymen who imported yoga to the
> west, (Maharishi, Osho, Sri Chinmoy, Swami Satchidananda come to mind)
> I am convinced they started with good intention. They certainly have
> left me with a perspective allowing me to discern some of our more
> destructive Western notions. And at the same time realize some of our
> more alluring cultural values, such as self-determination and
> independence are more advanced than the ancient rigid societies of the
> East.
>
> --
> ~Stu
I've spend considerable time thinking about these issues myself. In
taoism, the sage is the one who "unlearns" a little every day. Samadhi
in Buddhism can said to be the absense of thougt. All this is
considered in some way to be a spiritual ideal, but what of the
intellect? Sometimes the intellect is seen as a barrier to
enlightenment.
So I take it as a safe bet to have the Buddha as my role model in this
regard. I realized at one point that it wasn't his great enlightenment
alone that made him a great teacher, it was also his ability to teach
and communicate. He was educated. He was intelligent. He was, IMO, a
genius.
WRT to integrating Buddhism with western psychology, I say go for it.
The purpose of that to me though, is not that Buddhism itself is
lacking anything, but that it doesn't communicate to everybody. As far
as that monk goes, I dont' see that he even had a psychological
problem. He was a conflicted human being. The mistake is thinking
that spiritual practice makes one into some kind of logical,
emotionless robot. I call this Vulcan Dharma.
-DaveK
|