The average rating of those in the Fringe category is by far the lowest. This reflects more than just a prejudice against systems going beyond my version of traditional wisdom. That is there, to be sure, in the form of a relative conservatism about what works, but the main thing is the focus of fringies outside the self. As the union of the self and "other" is the end of all seeking, and the enquiry into the self the basic activity,
focusing on some outside other (aside from the special case of devotion, where the object is specifically and verifiably dissolution into the master) seems at best particularly roundabout, but more likely a stream leading into the desert, never to reach the sea.
The Devotion category has the next-lowest average rating, but not because of any opinion about its intrinsic worth, moral or otherwise. The main consideration here is utility. Is it going to work, ie do the job of bringing the seeker to dissolution? The answer is, it depends very much on the seeker, and in my estimation, the kind of seeker that can benefit from this approach does not, at this stage of the evolution of our species, represent a large proportion of the population. So it goes, eh? The
modern / postmodern age has created a population far more stressed and mind-oriented than any in the past; the simpler, heart-oriented seeker of bygone days is no more, at least among those with the tools to be reading this.
The plain fact is that these devotional masters may find suitable disciples, that is ones they can help, but they won't be finding them on the internet, and if you are looking here for a master, the devotional types will not likely be able to help you that much. Not because they are worth any less than other types, but because of you.
There is also one inherent drawback worth mentioning of this group: all groups in fact contain their share of bogi, but the ones in this category are perhaps the ones most likely to abuse and really damage those in their charge. Seekers attracted to a bogus of another category will in most cases soon see through it and move on but devotional types can cling for years to a manipulative, exploitive master.
And more subtly, there is a tendency for masters of this type to exaggerate
their greatness (for the benefit of the disciple). Even when this is not not
ego-puffery, we have the potential for the disciple getting stuck in
unworthiness issues. The most egregious examples of this may come from the
"super-master" class, thusly: A realized being can be godly in
significant ways, and it may even be appropriate to worship him or her, but
greater-than-ordinary-masters titles like "avatar" and "jagadguru"
end up misleading people about their own divinity, by underlining the comparison
between master and disciple. Even the ordinary situation of deference to the
master is loaded with unworthiness issues, what to say about the super-master?
Gurus who go this route play a dangerous game in my opinion. A correspondent
adds the distinction, "When we are told and reminded that we are all
avatars, it is profound. When we instead experience the huge human element of
ignorance in one who claims to be an avatar, it is a bit humorous as the ego
seems unrestrained and blatant." But some people appear to want and need
this kind of aggrandizement in their masters. So be it.
Another "unfortunate" dynamic that comes into play mainly in this
category is that few of these teachers recommend
individual investigation of the truth. They stress literature only and narrowly
connected to their tradition, such as Bhagavad Gita and their own eminent
commentaries thereon. As they represent themselves as either God or a direct
link to God, and encourage worship of their august selves, the lack of
independent inquiry can be stultifying to the point of Fundamentalism.
It is not entirely inappropriate that this kind of guru operates in this way, as
many of their charges would probably just get lost without some kind of
theological anchor. But the anchor needs to be balanced by something else, say a
perspective that other ways are okay for other people. Without such a
recognition of the appropriateness of diversity, the resulting intolerance
is
Between Advaita and the Middle Path there is not much to choose, average-ratingwise. Perhaps it could be said that there is less spread among non-dualists, they are more consistent with each other. They are similar philosophically, support each other, offer similar advice, etc, and with the relative flood of recent graduates from the Papaji and Nisargadatta streams, there is not a lot to say about their differences, especially considering that most are a little wet behind the ears and have not yet shown their effectiveness over a period of time. But the number of people attaining their "drive-through" enlightenment (see also The Advaita Disease
and Quality Control) gives one pause: enough of these folks have since recanted that one must wonder if this path is particularly prone to delusion.
The towering figure in Advaita in the last century has been Ramana Maharshi. He remains almost universally loved and respected, and his line,
mainly through Papaji – or at least claimed as such by Papaji's heirs – continues to flourish. The limiting features of Advaita are its dryness and the relative difficulty of getting any traction, that is, the featureless non-dual landscape offers little in the way of practical help. While apparently highly effective for certain types of people, the principal method of Advaita – a self-enquiry that discards successive answers to
"Who am I?" until no persona is left – is so devoid of connection to the material and emotional world and the lives of ordinary people that few are
benefited. Ramana's recognition of the efficacy of the Devotional path made it possible for him to go beyond this and help a wide range of people. Still he was relatively dualistic about this, if i may be so bold, in
the sense that he recognised the ends of the spectrum but not much in between.
Seeing the limitations of the Devotional and Advaita paths, Middle Path masters have made
a conscious choice to explore more accessible and above all, practical alternatives. They have
presented a myriad of idiosyncratic methods to engage our minds and energies while we carry on the search. The best of them come to meet us where we
understand ourselves to be, rather than where we "should" be or may be
in our "Ultimate Reality."
As a class, Middle Path groups have engendered streams of enlightenment spanning many centuries, the best known being in the Sufi, Zen,
Yoga and Tibetan traditions. Methods have included all manner of practices whose efficacy varies tremendously but, at least in the ideal, they are tailored to meet our individual needs. It might be said of a master in this class that
s/he guides us to be more in tune with ourselves so that eventually we can be our own inner guides. Thus
s/he also in the end frees us from the dependence that so often arises in the master-disciple relationship.
|
