Understanding the contrast between conventional or relative truths, and ultimate or absolute truths, is crucial if we are going to understand controversial spiritual figures like Osho, Gurdjieff, and Crowley (and many others). This is because in the case of teachers like them the contrast is particularly vivid. Crowley claimed being an 'Ipsissimus', an ultimate level of development, and yet ends up addicted to hard drugs and leads a life that in the domain of interpersonal relationships appears to be in large part a mess. Gurdjieff is regarded as a highly advanced master by many, and yet appears to others to be a volatile, hard drinking, chain smoking, Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde type. Osho claims full enlightenment, yet dictates books while stoned on nitrous oxide, appears to be oblivious to his Oregon commune falling apart, and is given a fleet of ninety-three Rolls-Royces, which he accepts. The controversial Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa is understood in his own tradition to be a
tulku, a highly evolved being, and ends up dying at age forty-eight of liver damage brought on by years of hard drinking. (And there are endless other examples.) How to account for all that?
More than one observer - many of whom were students at one point or another of any of these (or similar) crazy-wisdom type teachers - has gotten entangled in perceptions that focus exclusively on the conventional personalities of these teachers, thereby ending up invalidating all work done with them and by extension, all work done on themselves when with them (or their communities). This is clearly problematic. Further, many who are intrigued by the idea of walking a spiritual path find out about teachers like these and never bother stepping on the path in the first place, assuming that the whole thing is inherently corrupt because the gurus themselves are inherently corrupt. There is even something of a cottage industry that has sprung up around trashing spiritual teachers of any stripe. The internet, that domain notorious for all kinds of people suddenly finding courage to express certain ideas, is rife with websites devoted to guru-bashing. (An ammusing example of this is the site
www.strippingthegurus.com, which is devoted to attacking a long list of well known spiritual teachers. Many of the points the author makes are valid, and some of his remarks are genuinely funny, but the whole thing suffers from the typical Achilles Heel of 'guru-critics' and that is the problem of context. Almost always such critiques are notoriously bereft of proper context.)
Many of the issues inherent in the problem of the 'Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde' type guru are resolved when the contrast between absolute and conventional realities is clarified. Put simply, any guru, no matter how seemingly sublime, remains a human being, bound by the limitations and laws of nature that a human body-mind must conform to.
Most of the wisdom traditions recognize that there are different levels of illumination or enlightenment, beginning with enlightenment at the level of the mind, and culminating in a supreme state of realization in which the entire body-mind is transfigured. What is also generally recognized is that, in the vast majority of cases, an enlightened teacher has only passed through the preliminary stages of awakening, at the level of the mind. Further, it is usually agreed that such a level of realization does not completely transform the personality, and not necessarily even all neurotic tendencies. Georg Feuerstein, in his excellent work,
Holy Madness, quotes the radical Indian guru U.G. Krishnamurti (not to be confused with J. Krishnamurti) as follows:
The personality does not change when you come into this state [of enlightenment]. You are, after all, a computer machine that reacts as it has been programmed. It is in fact your present efforts to change yourself which are taking you away from yourself and are keeping you from functioning in a natural way. The personality will remain the same. Don't expect such a man to become free from anger or idiosyncrasies. Don't expect some kind of spiritual humility... it is for this reason that each person who comes to this state expresses it in a unique way, in terms which are relevant to this time.
It can be safely surmised that neither Crowley or Gurdjieff or Osho were examples of complete enlightenment involving total transfiguration of the body-mind. All three, however were almost certainly examples of awakened mystics at the level of the mind. In addition, all three had extremely dynamic personalities - powerful intellects, agressive tendencies, autocratic, willful, arrogant, stubborn, energetic, and highly charasmatic. It can also easily be noted that these personality qualities existed
prior to their deeper awakenings, and without question continued to exist, in large part,
after their awakenings.
This is an important point because there is an idea found in some spiritual philosophies that the personality is dissolved with enlightenment, or worse, there is the commonly found new age belief that the personality becomes 'nice' - unconditionally loving and graceful at all times - after a spritual awakening. This view is clearly counter to all evidence. Occasionally, one finds a spiritual teacher who has a particularly smooth or easy-going nature, but almost always one finds out that this was their basic personality-type prior to their spiritual realizations as well.
Nuts would be closer to the truth....
Have you actually read any of the better biographies, any of Frieda's letters and so on ?
)
