The Guru Papers
About ten years ago, a book entitled: The Guru Papers, by Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad, made quite a splash in many circles. The sub-title of the work was: 'Masks of Authoritarian Power'.
The following comments serve as something of an extended mini-review of the foregoing work. In this review, a substantial amount of time is given to providing readers with a fair and accurate overview of the perspective of the two authors, but toward the end of this essay, a certain amount of critical analysis concerning their work is provided, so please be patient.
One of the essential themes of the Kramer-Alstad study was that all Guru-devotee or teacher-seeker relationships are inherently, unavoidably, irrevocably, problematically, and without exception, authoritarian in nature. Although the authors knew most about the way things worked in Yogic and Buddhist systems, the two writers were quite clear that they believed no spiritual, mystical tradition was free from the destructive presence of authoritarian practices and influences.
Furthermore, these two authors argued that no one should suppose the central difficulty in such teacher- seeker relationships could be attributed to the personal failings of a few rotten apples in the barrel -- that is, Kramer and Alstad maintained that even if one could remove from consideration all those teachers who had given in to the dark side of themselves and, as a result, became abusers and exploiters of their followers, nevertheless, the remaining spiritual guides -- no matter how good, decent, well-intended, and knowledgeable they might be -- would still be ensconced in a system which was inextricably authoritarian. In other words, the problem was institutional or systemic and not a function of wayward and rogue 'teachers'. Even when the individual apples were good, the barrel in which they existed and operated was rotten with the insidious presence of authoritarian practices.
Early in The Gurus Papers, the two authors made a distinction between, on the one hand, issues of authority, as well as hierarchy, and, on the other hand, authoritarian practices which are often confused and conflated with the former two principles. According to Kramer and Alstad, every society or social order requires the use of authority and hierarchy to be able to function properly, but when authoritarian influences seep into either the uses of authority or hierarchy, then, according to the authors, the seeds of eventual social disintegration are being sown.
While Kramer and Alstad are interested in a wide variety of social contexts which tend to become entangled with authoritarian abuses, the two researchers key in on spiritual, religious, and mystical contexts because such traditional settings offer, in their opinion, an unusually fruitful opportunity to explore the way the absolutist nature of the Guru-seeker relationship is rooted, supposedly, in demands for total obedience and surrender, and, consequently, provides a window, as it were, onto the manner in which the exercise of authoritarian power leads to not only the control of physical contingencies, but to the shaping, structuring, coloring, and orienting of mental, emotional, motivational, and behavioral processes, as well.
According to the perspective of the authors of The Gurus Papers, spiritual ideologies are used in authoritarian systems to, among other things, justify and render plausible, or reasonable, the exercise of authoritarian control. When one accepts a spiritual system, one, knowingly or unknowingly, commits oneself to submitting to whatever yoke of authoritarian power the system deems to be appropriate in order to enable the spiritual institution, in question, to operate smoothly, efficiently, and effectively as a means of -- so the promise goes -- helping individuals to become: realized, enlightened, fully human, awakened, saved, sanctified, or whatever other spiritual ideals are being promulgated by that spiritual system as being the goal(s) or purpose(s) of life.
Kramer and Alstad claim to have no quarrel with the idea of spirituality, per se. Rather, their stated concern is with processes which seek to justify, defend, enhance, promote, and/or mask the exercise of authoritarian control by creating gateway figures -- i.e., teachers, gurus, masters -- who, allegedly, are the only ones who can safely and effectively guide one to the spiritual treasures on the other side of the spiritual gate -- even when that gate resides within us -- and do so by requiring followers to refrain from challenging, in any way, the guide's directives, interpretations, pronouncements, practices, demands, expectations, or understandings.
The two authors believe the vast majority of historical, traditional, social systems are saturated with the uses, and subsequent destructive effects, of authoritarian power. They feel the omnipresence of such practices and influences has undermined our individual and collective capacity for self-trust, and this, in turn, has shackled our creative potential for developing new social and institutional arrangements concerning constructive uses of authority and hierarchy that are capable of solving the many dilemmas with which we are confronted.
The creators of The Gurus Papers are in search of a new paradigm -- one that will attract commitment through consensus rather than the coercive force inherent in authoritarian demands for mental, social, spiritual, emotional and physical obedience, submission, or conformity. The authors are seeking a paradigm shift that will give emphasis to helping people to learn how to trust and value their own experiences rather than succumbing to a rote-learning process of indoctrination fraught with unexamined assumptions, as well as a submissive compulsion to blindly follow antiquated, problematic value and methodological systems.
Of particular interest to Kramer and Alstad are the techniques used by authoritarian systems to inculcate a set of moral values which are internalized and used to control people. According to the authors, such techniques are even more important than the exercise of physical control, for the latter is quite limited in scope and cannot be used on a continuous basis without either, sooner or later, leading to social upheaval and significant challenges through some form of countervailing physical force, or simply leading to the fragmentation of society as the pressure of physical force generates ruptures in the social fabric that are unpredictable and, often, irreparable.
When authoritarian processes are used to shape how people think, believe, feel, speak, and act, the world-view, paradigm, or framework through which reality is engaged and understood becomes the medium of control. The most dangerous shackles are the ones which are invisible to us because we do not see them for what they are -- namely, authoritarian demands for obedience which have been internalized and re-framed as unchallengeable moral certitudes that are justified by an ideology one has been induced not to question or critically reflect upon.
Moreover, from the perspective of Kramer and Alstad, one of the primary functions of encouraging the idea of moral certainty in people is that the latter instills in the minds of such individuals a self-righteous attitude that justifies perpetrating all manner of cruelty, hatred, anger, and oppression toward the 'miscreants' who have not, yet, submitted to such 'truths' and, therefore, serves as the ideological warrant for telling other people -- by force, if necessary -- how to live their lives, what goals to seek, which authorities to believe or trust, who to be and why. The sort of certitude which is indifferent to facts, evidence, critical analysis, contrary experience, unbiased evaluation, methodological rigor, unexplained anomalies, unanswered questions, and soulful reflection is impervious to anything other than its own interests, likes, dislikes, prejudices, goals, assumptions, and limitations.
Such rigidity and dogmatic impenetrability is used as the first line of defense against any challenges to the moral justification for perpetrating a system which is, essentially, operated through authoritarian processes that, ultimately, demand total obedience and submission to the purveyors of the oppressive practices which have been used to indoctrinate people to accept such a moral, emotional, mental, and spiritual cul-de-sac or dead end in the first place. The system is circular, and, therefore, self-perpetuating as long as the underlying authoritarian practices enjoy the privileges of eminent domain that are assumed to be absolute, and, therefore, unchallengeable by virtue of the moral certitude which, supposedly, lies at the heart of the assumption which is vouchsafing those privileges and which, consequently, underwrites the justification for doing things in an authoritarian fashion.
According to the authors of The Gurus Papers, morality is the mortar which cements the bricks of society together, and in order to avoid the appearance of requiring people to abide by arbitrarily derived rules of conduct, morality was embedded in religious systems that were, in turn, backed by claims to the ultimate authority of absolute truths which were Divine in nature. Thus, morality, religion, spirituality, goodness, justice, meaning, purpose, community, and identity all took their lead from a set of Divinely given absolute principles.
Kramer and Alstad contend that central to the aforementioned set of principles was a 'renunciate' orientation to life. This renunciate philosophy or theology required individuals to sacrifice self-interest in the name of the 'higher good' as defined by a given religious framework and as interpreted by those who came to be the guardians of that system -- namely, the spiritual guides, clerics, officials, and so on, who, supposedly, were most knowledgeable about what Divinity wanted from humankind.
The two authors further argued that forgiveness, guilt, reward, shame, and punishment were among the primary tools used to induce people to adopt the renunciate perspective and eschew self-interest. In fact, the guardians of these spiritual frameworks pointed out that real self-interest was synonymous with adhering to a renunciate way of life -- that, in effect, there was no essential antagonism between the two.
Issues of death, life, loss, pain, purpose, meaning, difficulty, uncertainty, the unknown, were dealt with through the fixed symbols, myths, rituals, and mysteries of absolute truth. However, Kramer and Alstad maintain that the price for pushing back the apparent chaos of life-events in this fashion was a way of being which became anachronistic due to its inability to flexibly, reasonably, creatively, and effectively respond to the challenges and problems generated through on-going history.
Under the relentless pressure of history, the authors contend that many of the myths, symbols, and rituals have been disconnected from their original sources, and, consequently, there has been a wide-spread loss of an essential sense of meaning, purpose, identity, and community which has led to considerable moral decay as people no longer see the relevance of abiding by renunciate theologies which do not seem to serve either collective or individual well-being. This state of affairs has, in the view of Kramer and Alstad, led to the rise of various forms of fundamentalism which seek to, ever more tightly, cling to traditional -- or, what are believed to be traditional - values, methods, beliefs, and practices in an attempt to revive, through an exercise of sheer intensity of will-power, what seems to have been lost ... as if the mere urgency and direness of human desperation could turn back the calendar to a simpler, seemingly more innocent and spiritually advantageous time.
In the view of the authors of The Gurus Papers, fundamentalists are experiencing a loss of control over their lives. They feel powerless in the face of modern forms of science, technology, culture, communication, government, education, and economics which have leveraged power in ways that bring traditional modes of spiritual life under constant attack, generating many doubts and questions in the process, and, as well, create an onslaught of moral problems for traditionally minded and hearted individuals.
Kramer and Alstad believe that what is needed at this juncture of history is "an ethics for survival". In their opinion, renunciate systems focus on rewards and punishments in a world-to-come context that looks upon existence from a self-serving paradigm which favors authoritarian means as a way of serving such ends, and, therefore, do little but use tactics of fear and self-righteous anger to force people to submit to a system which does very little to solve the problems and eliminate the injustices of the present world.
The authors contend that renunciate systems of morality are inherently judgmental and use fear and force to impose this perspective on people. In other words, individuals become so imbued with the fear of bringing down upon themselves the wrath of God or of being denied the fruits of Heaven -- at least, according to the teachings of the guardians of the faith -- that the commonality of people often become paralyzed with indecision ... not wishing to do anything which will jeopardize their standing in eternity, and, in the process, helping to perpetuate an authoritarian approach to life that spreads destructive seeds everywhere it blows.
Kramer and Alstad believe that the spirit of the authoritarian mind-set is nowhere more apparent than in mystical systems that are based on a teacher-seeker relationship in which a seeker blindly concedes authority to another person who claims to be a spiritual guide, and, in the process of such a concession, a number of untested and unproven assumptions are made concerning the character, understanding, and authenticity of the so-called teacher. Such a seeker is operating on presuppositions such as: the 'teacher' is morally superior to the seeker, and, as well, enjoys a far greater degree of spiritual knowledge, self-realization, insight, potential, and closeness to Divinity, than the seeker does -- all of which supposedly enables the 'teacher' to understand what is best for another individual.
In the opinion of Kramer and Alstad, the foregoing sort of presuppositions lend themselves to the creation of different forms of dualism, and among the most important of these is the: sacred and non-sacred dichotomy. In the context of the teacher-seeker relationship, whatever the teacher is, says, thinks, feels, does, indicates, and suggests is sacred, and whatever is not in consonance with these dimensions of the teacher is non-sacred.
The task of the seeker becomes one of absorbing or of activating this sense of sacredness within herself or himself and, in addition, eliminating the non-sacred. The task of the teacher is to assist the seeker to do this.
As such, the teacher becomes the role model through which this is to be accomplished. However, the authors of The Gurus Papers feel that much of what is passed off as sacred in such mystical circles is little more than vested interests, self-aggrandizement, cultural constructions, and individual preferences on the part of the 'teacher'.
When the 'teacher' becomes the unchallengeable arbiter of truth and 'seekers' adopt renunciate methodologies and moralities that encourage the latter to sacrifice their own capacity for experience, reflection, analysis, questioning, exploration, trust, identity, and realization at the altar of a teacher, then, in the opinion of Kramer and Alstad, one has an authoritarian recipe for spiritual disaster which is likely to produce little more than people who are dogmatic, rigid, static, self-righteous, judgmental, elitist, as well as incapable of either thinking for themselves or trusting their inner selves.
The Gurus Papers approaches the issues of authoritarian power through the spectacles of a broadly evolutionary, progressive, humanistic, rationalistic, dialectical point of view. Although I believe the authors have some good insights to offer with respect to a number of the problems which exist in many teacher-seeker relationships (both on the side of the guide, as well as on the side of the seeker), nonetheless, their overall analysis appears to suffer from many inadequacies, lacunae, presumptions, unanswered questions, and problems -- not the least of which is the entirely arbitrary nature of their conception of dialectical analysis, rationalistic methodology, and moral valuation, in addition to the constant vagueness that dogs such key issues in their book as: authority, hierarchy, self, trust, spirituality, creativity, evolution, truth, abstraction, purpose, identity, enlightenment, love, and knowledge.
The Gurus Papers is more than 370 pages long and, perhaps, at least that many pages might be necessary to demonstrate that the authors have not proven their central thesis that the nature of the teacher-seeker relationship is necessarily authoritarian. I am -- as I believe many people would be -- quite prepared to concede that, all too frequently, such relationships are riddled with authoritarian practices and influences, but claiming that such practices and influences are systemic and unavoidable in these sorts of relationship is quite another matter. In my view, the authors certainly have not proven their central thesis beyond a reasonable doubt, and, moreover, I do not believe they even have met a far less stringent burden of proof which requires them to have demonstrated that their thesis, on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, is likely true -- in other words, that the teacher-seeker relationship is necessarily authoritarian in nature.
There are a number of comments which could be made in defense of the foregoing critical pronouncements concerning The Gurus Papers. But, rather than occupy the reader's time with the long version of such comments, I will only note a few possibilities.
To begin with, demanding or expecting that Being should be reducible to rationalistic methodologies -- as Kramer and Alstad tend to do -- is not only arbitrary and unprovable, but it is, essentially, authoritarian in scope and principle. Moreover, such a position presupposes there is a consensus of opinion about what constitutes the rational or the logical, when, in truth, none exists.
This is not to say there is no such thing as logic or rational methodology, but, rather, it is a reflection of the reality that there are a variety of modalities of rational and logical processes about which much critical discussion has taken place. Differences in philosophy, science, theology, law, literature, culture, linguistics, education, and mysticism all testify to the fact that there is an on-going search for the logical, the rational, and the common sensical in everyday life.
Point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint is the rhythm of intellectual life. The tapestry woven by various rational techniques produces an intriguing but chaotic set of antagonistic motifs in our individual and collective minds.
Where is the truth in all of this? What is its significance? How do we use it to identify the real?
Furthermore, there are forms of understanding with which we are all familiar which resist, if not defy, rational, logical analysis in many ways. There is an intelligence to seeing, hearing, feeling, being, and consciousness, which does not seem reducible to any discernible scheme of rational, logical discourse. Maybe, in the future this may all change, but, right now, reason and logic have not been able to fathom the mysteries which envelop our existence and through which we engage such existence.
The very nature of the mystical way is that it is said to be ineffable. Yes, all kinds of people have written whole libraries about the contexts surrounding the ineffable, but the unspoken and unspeakable remain what they are -- secrets which, to whatever extent they can be grasped, are best engaged through the trans-rational realms of venues such as the heart, spirit, and Self.
One can agree with Kramer and Alstad that one should not pursue the mystical way naively, blindly, unquestioningly, mechanically, and without rational reflection. However, there are many times on the spiritual path when rational analysis will not provide one with definitive, certain, unchallengeable answers -- not unless we wish to make reason an authoritarian force within us that is absolute and which cannot be questioned as to its reliability, validity, potential, and limitations.
There are many aspects of life, many experiences, for which reason has not even the foggiest of plausible explanations for how they are possible. Consciousness, creativity, talent, language, logic, intelligence, and rationality are just a few of these unknown facts of life.
Many rationalists would like to reduce faith down to belief but balk when they realize that, from such a perspective, having faith in rationality becomes little more than an exercise in generating a belief system about the nature of thought. Faith is far more complex than mere belief, and, as a result, faith leads into unchartered territories, where the sextant of rationalism and the known charts of logic do not always help one find one's way in the darkness of existence.
We live in the midst of uncertainty, ignorance, ambiguity, possibility, antagonistic forces, and need. As a result, we are vulnerable.
We require someone to show us how to supplement and complement rational tools with other modalities of knowing and understanding. We need someone to initiate us into a process of being able to have a constructive dialectic between reason and the trans-rational.
Kramer and Alstad are smart, talented, articulate, serious explorers. Yet, I know they don't know how to do the foregoing. This is obvious -- both from what they say, as well as from what they don't say.
The authors tell me to trust myself, but they don't provide any solid clues about who this self is that I am supposed to trust. More importantly, they aren't very clear about why I should trust this mysterious 'self' to which they allude in their book.
What is this 'self' rooted in? The truth? Reality, in some sense of this word? How do we know this? How can we be certain of this? Is this 'self' absolute and unchallengeable? Where did this 'self' come from? What is its purpose, or does it have any? Is this self a 'rational' self? A trans-personal 'self'? Is this 'self' solipsistic and the creator of reality? If so, how does it accomplish this? What values should this 'self' live or judge by? How are these values derived? Why should one trust the method of derivation? What is the significance of experience? Are they arbitrary or do they have a meaning, and, if so, what is that meaning, and how do we discover the nature of such meaning? What methods should be used? What happens when this 'self' comes into conflict or disagreement with other 'selves'? How should disputes be resolved? Why? How does one address all of the foregoing without slipping into authoritarian practices?
The authors of The Gurus Papers have a theory about all of the foregoing, but that is all it is -- an untested, unproven, problematic, ambiguous, vague, incomplete theory. It is a world-view, a paradigm, a philosophical framework -- a framework which cannot offer me one, incontestable, definitive smoking-gun of a reason why one should adopt their perspective ... other than, of course, the obvious fact that there seem to be problems everywhere else in the arena of rational discourse, and, so, why not try 'our' (i.e., their) way of doing things.
Beyond the foregoing issues, I think that Kramer and Alstad have made a mistake in reasoning that is quite similar to one which Freud, among many others, made. More specifically, one is on shaky ground when one tries to construct a model of healthy relationships based on an exploration of pathology.
In other words, the authors of The Gurus Papers go into great deal of detail about teacher-seeker relationships which have gone wrong, together with the difficulties that arise out of such dysfunctional relationships -- both for individuals and society. One can agree with a great deal which they have to say in this respect.
Nevertheless, they are using an inductive variation of extrapolation which implies that because some -- or even many -- teacher-seeker relationships are diseased, then, all such relationships must be diseased and, moreover, that all teacher-seeker relationships must necessarily manifest the same debilitating set of processes from which there is no escape. However, if what they were saying were actually true, then, the relationship which any reader has with their book must be inherently dysfunctional and, consequently, doomed to failure because the general format of this sort of relationship is that of someone who is imparting a version of reality/truth to someone who is interested in seeking after the nature of reality/truth -- that is, loosely construed, a teacher-seeker relationship.
The authors might counter with something along the following lines. Precisely because we do not commit any of the mistakes present in problematic guru-devotee relationships, we have provided a healthy, constructive opportunity to explore issues, ideas, problems, and so on which is free from authoritarian influences and practices. The presumptuousness of such a riposte -- if it were to happen -- is in the belief that a spiritual guide could not accomplish what the authors have been able to pull off -- or, so, the latter may believe.
Kramer and Alstad want to help readers develop a sense of trust in their inner selves. They wish to do this without force, compulsion, trickery, deceit, duplicity, insincerity, manipulation, exploitation, dishonesty. They wish to achieve this through a reciprocity with, and respect for, the integrity and self-determining sovereignty of the other person.
The authors would like to have truth, facts, evidence, experience, and rigorous methodology decide such matters, rather than bias, prejudice, dogma, unexamined assumptions, conformity, and blind acceptance. Kramer and Alstad would like individuals to become free, autonomous, independent thinkers and doers who are interested in the welfare of all of Creation even as they strive to realize their own essential potential and unique identity.
The two writers would like people to reconcile and harmonize oppositions within themselves, as well as across all social relationships, by extending and expanding the notion of the sacred to include the whole of Being, and not just be restricted to the next-world and/or arbitrarily selected 'holy' people. The authors of The Gurus Papers would like to establish modes of justice, decency, morality, and discernment which are not arrogant, narrow, self-serving, exclusionary attempts at justifying and perpetuating authoritarian systems of power.
Kramer and Alstad might be surprised to discover that there actually are spiritual, mystical guides who speak in the same sort of terms, goals, purposes, priorities intentions, and methods as do these authors. An authentic teacher -- of whatever kind -- is interested in only one thing ... assisting an individual to discover the truth about life, identity, capacity, justice, service, knowledge, community, love, self, integrity, freedom, realization, wisdom, as well as the nature of one's relationship with Being and the many levels and dimensions of manifested Creation.
An authentic teacher -- spiritual or otherwise -- does not want a student to become the teacher. Such teachers want a person to become herself or himself ... to realize his or her potential ... to come to know one's place in the scheme of things and to be freely committed to being all that one's capacity permits one to be.
An authentic teacher assists an individual to learn how, when, why, and where to trust herself or himself under different circumstances. Authentic teachers induce seekers to submit to the truth and to be satisfied with nothing less than the truth.
Over the last 32 years, or so, there have been two people in my life with whom I have had a teacher-seeker relationship. One of these was authentic, healthy, and constructive, while the other was not, but I learned from both sets of relationship.
If the sequence of life events had been reversed so that I had to endure the dysfunctional relationship first, I don't know how I might have responded to subsequent events -- including meeting up with someone who actually was an authentic spiritual guide. However, by the Grace of God, I didn't encounter the problematic relationship first, but, rather, I had a non-pathological relationship as my introduction to the mystical path. Many others have not been so fortunate.
I know from my own personal experience that Kramer and Alstad's thesis concerning the alleged inherent, authoritarian nature of all teacher-seeker relationships is wrong. My first -- and, so far, only authentic -- guide was the exact antithesis of an authoritarian. He never asked -- directly or indirectly -- for me to submit myself to him, or to conform to his ways of doing things, or to blindly and unquestioningly accept any of the things which he said or did. He was extremely humble and never even hinted at being superior to others. He permitted all manner of questions and was very generous in the time, resources, and efforts which he devoted to providing insights, principles, explanations, and teachings concerning various facets of spirituality - both exoteric and esoteric. In fact, his way of doing things was, ultimately, by the Grace of God, my salvation in dealing with the very problematic ramifications of the spiritually dysfunctional 'teacher' with whom I later came into contact after my mystical guide passed away in the late 1980s.
The line of demarcation which differentiates between spiritual authenticity and a spiritual fraud can be very tricky to discern. Even when, on the surface, everything appears to be 'kosher', nevertheless, if someone is described as a bonafide spiritual guide who does things in a constructive, well-intentioned, non-authoritarian manner, and, yet, such a person has not been authorized by Divinity, then, such an individual is a spiritual fraud and cannot serve as the channel of transmission for the spiritual assistance which is necessary to traverse the mystical path, and, as a result, is placing people in harm's way -- both now, and, potentially, in the future -- even though, on the surface everything seems to be done with appropriate spiritual etiquette and with due diligence for the welfare of associated practitioners.
When minions of Satan appear in the manifested form of a Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, and so on, the decision seems clear cut -- although even here there were sincere people who were exploited. When the minions of Satan appear in the guise of a kindly, friendly, intelligent, charming, engaging, concerned, knowledgeable, passionate, committed teacher who claims spiritual authenticity where none exists, then, one has a real problem on one's hand, because once in the presence of such quicksand, the process of extrication may not be all that easy -- and among the chief reasons for such difficulty is that one often does not even realize one is dealing with a spiritual imposter -- indeed, beware of the arrogance which whispers to one's heart 'you could not make such an error', for it is happening every day among sincere people all over the world, and it is happening because we live in treacherous times where authentic spiritual light is very difficult to find and the forces of chaos, disinformation, and darkness are very prominent -- many of these forces call themselves spiritual guides and many people believe them.
The authentic teachers of mysticism often indicate that no one comes to Self-realization except through encountering both the compassionate and rigorous attributes of Divinity. I don't know what other, if any, rigorous, Divine attributes I will have to experience in my life as I continue my quest to learn how to serve the purpose of my existence, but there is no doubt in my mind, heart, and soul that the last ten years of my life -- the ones spent with a spiritual fraud -- have been very spiritually rigorous in character, for the relationship with the mystical imposter has entailed a great variety of difficulties -- difficulties which Divinity permitted, for there is no reality other than God, and difficulties which I am very thankful have come to an end - God willing.
| Return to Spiritual Abuse Menu |
|
