My apologies for the typo in my original Subject line. I did not mean for "AuthoritativeO" to become confused with "Authoritative." Everyone knows that the former is the name of a breakfast cereal preferred by gurus, AuthoritativeO's. The latter is how the gurus believe their burps should be perceived after eating a big bowl of them.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > I've rapped before, from similar cafes as this one, about > the various myths surrounding enlightenment (or whatever > you choose to call it), and how those who claim enlightenment > (or whatever they call it) often do not seem to walk the walk > of that mythic talk. One of those myths is that they are by > definition incapable of speaking anything that is not Truth. > I've also rapped in the past about how those who expect to > be listened to and revered as if everything they say is > Truth react to someone treating them as Just Another Guy. > > Today what I'm pondering is not so much what they do when > their holy authority is challenged, but WHY they would want > to be perceived as authoritative in the first place. > > That one just whizzes right over my head. I don't get it. > > I have a few friends who have gone into the guru business. > Based on the few conversations we have had in recent years, > they seem to want me to interact with them as if they are > gurus, and with proper deference to their wisdom and presumed > authority. Suffice it to say we don't talk much. If we did, > I suspect that they'd say that the things they say as if > they were Truth *are* Truth, and would be obvious *as* Truth > to me if I just treated them as the selfless spokespersons > for Truth they are. > > The first time this happened, I couldn't help remembering > the night that the speaker, back before he went all guru and > all, got all blissed up and confided in me that his deepest > longing and need in life was to be adored. Not loved. Adored. > Worshipped. In the context of that conversation, by a woman > so in love with him that she could not even conceive of him > having faults. Now he's a guru. You do the math. > > I still love these people as friends, but I'm just not wired > to relate to them as gurus or as authorities, only as friends. > Friends have faults. They're wrong about shit from time to > time. That's what I expect of my current friends, and that > is what they expect of me. I rarely disappoint them. :-) > > So I just don't get it. Can someone who feels not only > that the guru or teacher is some kind of authority and that > they should be related to as such please explain it to me? > Based on the things written here, there are quite a few > folks on this forum who believe this. I'm asking you to > explain WHY, to someone who clearly doesn't get it. >
