Spiritual teachers must answer to a higher standard of behavior and accountability than their students; we can not be excused for abusive, cruel behavior on the basis of any idea that we are inherently immune from criticism by virtue of our advanced state of realization.
We are, after all, those to whom people come for help resolving the most profound and disturbing aspects of all human existence; we are those to whom they come seeking final release from the universal suffering that seems to be the natural lot of human life. And as such, like it or not, we are looked upon as being outside and above the norm, different from them, and answering to a higher call than service to ourselves and to our own happiness and gratification.
Those who come to us by and large are willing to lay it all on the line before us, hoping once and for all to be led by us to the end of suffering and confusion, and the snuffing out of the craving for happiness. They come to us pre-conditioned by thousands of years of hidebound tradition, believing us to be inscrutable and beyond the standards of normal human conduct. They believe that what we have to offer them is so mysterious and hidden from ordinary view that they have no basis for judging our conduct, since our conduct, however hideous, might be just what is needed to “wake them up.”
We can, of course, resort to bankrupt ideas about non-duality and the like to excuse our shortcomings, but that just doesn’t work for me; it’s just another limited story about reality, and there is no life in it, no joy, nothing real. We who find ourselves in this peculiar role need to own up to what we do and take responsibility for our wrongdoings no matter how ‘unspiritual’ that might seem. We are trusted, and we should keep ourselves worthy of that trust as best we can.
You are the master. There is no guru; there is no dispeller of darkness; there is no one to whom devotion is owed, no one to whom devotion is a condition of your realization, and nothing that needs to be fixed about you. There is nothing that needs to be cleared away for you to see what you are. You are all that is.
EMail This Post
Print This Post 
2,582 Views 
Michelle | 07-Nov-06 at 12:25 am | Permalink
Thank you for writing this article. It brings my attention back to what is here right now.
Denise Handlon | 07-Nov-06 at 9:26 am | Permalink
Hi John,
I have met you during satsangs with both Gangaji and Eli. I appreciate your addressing of this serious issue that has arisen at this time. I feel it is highly beneficial and of great value to bring more light on this matter through other teachers rather than sweeping it under the rug and ignoring that this has occurred.
I know that many of us on a spiritual path have sought nontraditional teachers as guides because of our individual background of secrets in families and congregations.
It is important for these patterns of human behavior to be exposed to the light. Many blessings to you, your work and the RiverGanga foundation.
Kent | 07-Nov-06 at 10:27 am | Permalink
I find your manner of presenting Ramana’s teaching so satisfying and helpful that I have not been motivated to look around that much — and I usually head back to Ramana for more info, not anyone else in the lineage.
I have long since put aside the notion that Self-realization puts a stop to human cravings or drives. These drives are part of the “human animal story”, and Self-realization simply seems to put them into perspective.
When you start to relate your experiences with self-inquiry, I hope you will (1) tell us HOW you inquire — is it an inquisitive looking? A bit of pondering and investigating of how you manage to have the experience of me? Etc.; (2) tell us what the experience / recognition of progress was like. How did you recognize that what you were doing was working? What was it like “inside” for you?
Thanks,
Kent
Brian | 07-Nov-06 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
Thank you for keeping true to Ramana Maharshi’s message, and thank you for your final paragraph:
You are the master. There is no guru; there is no dispeller of darkness; there is no one to whom devotion is owed, no one to whom devotion is a condition of your enlightenment, and nothing that needs to be fixed about you. There is nothing that needs to be cleared away for you to see what you are. You are all that is.
Patrick | 08-Nov-06 at 10:30 am | Permalink
I liked the post. I’m often drawn by some states or feelings which people say are important. In this case also I got the impression I should be feeling something about this. And I didn’t. It’s good to see someone who just stays here and feels good about it.
Frank W. | 09-Nov-06 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
Dear John,
Anyone I ever learned anything real from was a crook in one way or another. That includes Ramana and that includes John Sherman. I’m no saint, I’ll never be one and I have no use for any saintliness.
If anything, the actions of those among us who understand why the chicken crossed the road “should” be informed by conscience rather than morality, the love of truth rather than any notions of right and wrong. Good is the root of all evil. Posing for a moral example isn’t going to do a bit of good. It’s your forthcomingness about your own shortcomings that makes you a good example to us all.
There’s an upside to being disappointed in the teacher. It’s a reminder of what the point was again. Being free. It’s no good sitting at the feet of the Master trying to grasp —nothing— forever.
Love,
Frank
Michwel | 20-Nov-06 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
The last four words of the paragraph before last — those four words are the qualifier and cornerstone for the “teacher”, as well as for the “student” to tender and accept about the teacher. They are: “…as best we can”. We cannot look for or ask for anything else. Or can we? …Certainly, we can look for and ask for the integrity that is inherent in the beingness that teaches, even when it teaches by way of a person who has sufferage-engendering faults and behaviors. After all, even for that teacher, they “…are the master. There is no guru [for them]; there is no dispeller of darkness; there is no one to whom devotion is owed [by them], no one to whom devotion is a condition of [their] realization, and nothing that needs to be fixed about [them]. There is nothing that needs to be cleared away for [them] to see what [they] are. [They} are all that is”.
Therefore, eventhough their faults and behaviors may be, let’s say, partially sufferage-engaging and sufferage-engendering, can we as “students” not also acknowledge that their being a “teacher” for us is actually beyond their person, and that that person is just as much a student of their own being, if not more than we are, as their “students”-? Therefore, beyond asking and appreciating that they be and act trustworthy, as best they can, we can also ask and appreciate that they be/are aware, as we are aware, of the role they play within the being that teaches by way of them. As a matter of fact, is this not one of the first questions we ask ourselves regarding a potential teacher? “What is the status of this potential teacher’s aware connection with being?” And it does seem that “teachers of being” are aware of this. After all, this awareness is also the awareness that their being is “their” teacher. And, for them, it must also be the awareness that sustains the teaching, the teacher, and the sangha. And, it must be within this awareness that being accountable and trustworthy-intended is pertinent in the first place. In other words, accountability and trustworthiness may be seen as by-products of “awareness within being”. It must also be noted here that accountability and trustworthiness are in continual transformation, as is the nature of everything within being, with more or less perceivable plasticity. So, it is then more due to the aware-ness connection with being that sustained teaching occurs. And, it is due to this awareness connection with being that a continually transforming accountablility and trustworthiness occurs. This is why it would seem that if a teaching or teacher stops, it is more fundamentally because of changes transpiring with this awareness, than with sufferage-engendering faults and behaviors per se. From this perspective, it would not seem inappropriate to even be supportive of that teacher through their changes. By the same token, it would not seem inappropriate that the teacher –while being accountable and trustworthy as best they can– continue to teach through those transitions. It would not seem inappropriate to witness and acknowledge the teacher’s changes, so long as their awareness connection with being is maintained and the teaching is thereby sustained. Of course, there may well be more invoved than is considered even in this comment.
Ernie | 20-Apr-07 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
That last paragraph stopped me dead in my tracks.
John, one of the things I love about your satsangs/teachings is when you occasionally mention having ‘determination’ in our self inquiry. The determination to do nothing. Sounds funny but I get it.
hans | 11-May-07 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
i took a look following the link that is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GuruRatings/message/123953
Greetingz,
hans
hans | 12-May-07 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
background of my action above, is that teachers need to be confronted with their actions. There is a question in it. You write: “Spiritual teachers must answer to a higher standard of behavior and accountability than their students; “.
My question is the following:
to which standard must your students answer. And how can you know in advance of yourself that you will be able to meet higher standards, whatever higher means here.
Does free will exist, and is it up to you to choose to answer to higher standards than you would demand of me, in case I would become your student?
Background of this question is that I remember my teacher answering to such a worst scenario question (what would you do if …+ … +… happened):
I don’t know, I have never been in such a situation.
Greetingz,
hans
Warwick | 31-Jul-07 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
This is a very pertinent statement; that a teacher’s behaviour should be very responsible. The simple fact of the matter is that many “teachers” are simply charlatans. Rajneesh, Andrew Cohen and very many others.
And there are many who earn a very substantial living from their role as spiritual teachers who have only a very small view of the total picture; they have taken this tiny knowledge and run with it, while the larger view is quite outside their view. And there are others who act as all-purpose wise men and advice givers.
I have never before met anyone who goes so directly, with such simplicity, to the heart of the matter. John Sherman, I was only today directed to your website and it is like an oasis in a great spiritual desert.
Paul Regeer | 02-Mar-08 at 8:23 am | Permalink
What do we do (if anything) with the paradox of personal responsibility, a sense of duty based on one’s individual position in society, and one of the basic tenets of non-dualistic philosophy, which says that the realized ‘person’ is unbound by any obligation? Do we leave the paradox right there, or do we shift it slightly by saying that even in the non-dual state there’s always some duality left? Is it the shadowy* ego that still remains after realization that feels and carries the responsibility? If so, that ego is not so shadowy?!
(*the burnt rope that still looks like a rope but can’t be used to tie anything with anymore)