Guru Papers

[KSA]

I would really recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/Guru-Papers-M...ds=guru+papers

It would give a lot of insight on cult dynamics.

[aron]

From Chapter 1

. . . a disciple of an Eastern guru recounted a vignette to illustrate how his master could teach a profound lesson in a few words. The guru was having a temple built in his honor. Disciples from all over the world had come to the cornerstone ceremony with treasures, many of them of considerable value, to buried in a large hole under the foundation. The narrator had been chosen as the first to deposit his offering in the hole. He describes how in his pride at being selected to be first, he chose a large rock and enthusiastically threw it in. He then looked at the master, who said to him quietly, "Too much 'getting' is going on here." The man concluded by saying: that his humbled ego became far wiser as a result of those few words.

For the chastised disciple, the guru's lesson was a statement that his giving was not pure enough. Another entirely different interpretation of the above scenario is possible: To have a temple built in one's honor and then to further waste valuable gifts by burying them to symbolize one's greatness is a sign of a monumental ego that has little constraint. One of the cheapest guru ploys is to make people feel inadequate by showing how their behaviors are tainted with self-centeredness - always an easy task. This guru, who was the recipient of all this "getting", could not even share a little bit of it with his disciple without making him feel bad about himself. Perhaps the disciple's gift, a mere rock, was not grand enough. But since the guru is viewed by his disciples as a person beyond duality and beyond ego, they could not even entertain the possiblity of our interpretation.

Consequently, the disciple entirely missed the real lesson of history: The guru's "getting" and self-enhancement are masked by images of enlightenment and selflessness and thus are made unconscious. Once his purity and hence superiority are taken for granted, it is assumed that he deserves to be "getting" precisely because he is thought enlightened. He can thus reprimand his disciple for the very activity he was involved in on a far grander scale without it seeming hypocritical. Who gets and who gives is never questioned because "spiritual" values mask what is really going on.

The elders of the church in Anaheim, loyal hand-picked men all, got to see behind the mask. They saw a man like themselves, trying to deal with his errant son, and the genuine conflicts that this produced. For the moment, the mask of selflessness disappeared, and the man behind the mask was revealed. A man like themselves.

Paul ran among the people crying, "We are men like yourselves!!" (Acts 14:15) He wouldn't let them elevate him to some pseudo-mystical realm, passed beyond the riven veil of common mortals. No, he was of the "demos", of the people. But this guru from the east convinced new disciple RK that there was "No self" in Witness Lee the Bible expositor, when in reality he had self just like the rest of us. But it was hidden in esoteric and recondite mysticism, doubly pernicious because it came wrapped in Protestant and post-Protestant (19th century Brethrenist) terminology. So a graduate of Princeton Divinity School, in this example, became convinced that the fast track to heaven, in this case the "Consummated New Jerusalem", was found in being absolutely submissive to this ascended master, who had somehow ascended far above, into cloudless empyrean realms.

"Don't ask" and "don't think" and "don't question" became the hallmarks of this group. They loudly waved the oneness that came from the Spirit which raised Christ Jesus from the dead, but actual oneness was only to be found in absolute submission to the Deputy God.

[aron]

More from Chapter 1, on how a false (human) concept of "oneness" and personal enlightenment can lead to absolute, authoritarian hierarchy, and the inevitable fall:

Asserting a basic unity permeating all existence does not automatically lend itself to hierarchy. Enlightenment is the way hierarchy is brought in by viewing a few individuals as special channels for, and greater manifestations of, this underlying unity. Once it is assumed that some people embody or express the true nature of reality more than others, an authoritarian hierarchy easily flows from that basic assumption. This also lays the foundation for perpetuating the hierarchy, because the one who knows best can decide who is enlightened and thereby transfer the mantle of authority. One person deciding when another is enlightened does indeed seem a bit strange. One would presume that if enlightened, one would know it without being told. yet this is what occurs within many spiritual frameworks.

The ideal of enlightenment at first blush seems completely innocent of human corruption because it is defined as being totally selfless. Yet it is this sacrosanct concept of perfection that allows authoritarianism to manifest, and indeed to flourish. Two mental constructions work in tandem: Enlightenment provides authorities, and karma as a cosmic moral law provides metaphysical justification for why some rather than others come to be enlightened authorities. . .

Whereas monotheism makes the revealed Word of God sacred, Eastern religions [or culture] make presumed enlightened beings sacred. Thus the concept of enlightenment brings authoritarianism at the personal, charismatic level (gurus, masters, avatars, and buddhas). Here the authority comes from living people, not an institution -- although they almost always create an institution around themselves or are already part of one. Not coincidentally, surrendering to and obeying the master is presented as a (usually necessary) step on the path to enlightenment.

The very nature of any structure that makes one person different and superior to others not only breeds authoritarianism, but is authoritarian in its essence. Just as there is no way for humans to question a remote God, there is really no way for a non-enlightened person to question the words or actions of a presumed enlightened one. This is why gurus can get away with anything - they are judged by different standards that make whatever they do perfect by definition. The idea that someone is no longer susceptible to the corruptions of power ensures that corruption will occur, promulgating self-delusion in all involved. So the concept of enlightenment, precisely because it is so exalted, almost inevitably lends itself to abuse and corruption. It can be used to justify any behavior, privileges, or excesses, creating an insidious double standard for the superior ones.

I especially note "Whereas monotheism makes the revealed Word of God sacred, Eastern religions [or culture] make presumed enlightened beings sacred." Lee the presumed ascendant master could even pan the scriptures as fallen, natural, and low, as mere concepts of sinful men vainly imagining God and their place within the cosmos. Nothing of the NT reception of the OT, or Christian reception of the NT (or OT) lends to this, save perhaps a few intemperate remarks by Luther which he quickly recanted of. Yet Lee had free reign to carve up the Bible into "inspired" and "revelatory" sections and shockingly large "fallen" sections, which he called "complex sentiments" because he felt God's word was mixed with human thoughts. Only Lee the enlightened one, of course, could ferret this all out, and lead us through the minefield of scripture. Don't think, don't question, don't ask; just take in the interpreted Word from heaven's Deputy. .. (cough, cough, glug).. ..

Anyone who spent time in the Local Churches of Witness Lee can see how close to the bone this cuts. Jesus knew all this, of course, and built it into His teachings. He who was given "all power", lowered Himself into the dust, was the Servant of all, and taught His disciples to do the same. "If you want to be great, be nothing". On the other side of the Bema, there was indeed to be a place where star differs from star in glory, but on this side, while we are yet in the flesh, the only safe position was (and remains) to take the seat at the end of the table.

While yet here in the flesh, the only safe position is to assume that "we are men like yourselves, of like passions" and foibles. Al Knoch and John Ingalls and Godfred Ototeye and Bill Duane got to see the frail and feeble man behind the mask. A man just like the rest of us.

[Ohio]

For the chastised disciple, the guru's lesson was a statement that his giving was not pure enough. Another entirely different interpretation of the above scenario is possible: To have a temple built in one's honor and then to further waste valuable gifts by burying them to symbolize one's greatness is a sign of a monumental ego that has little constraint. One of the cheapest guru ploys is to make people feel inadequate by showing how their behaviors are tainted with self-centeredness - always an easy task. This guru, who was the recipient of all this "getting", could not even share a little bit of it with his disciple without making him feel bad about himself. Perhaps the disciple's gift, a mere rock, was not grand enough.

But since the guru is viewed by his disciples as a person beyond duality and beyond ego, they could not even entertain the possibility of our interpretation.

aron, your quotes from this book are an incredible description of how Lee elevated himself above all. Key to this was Lee's questioning others' motives, as if he alone were pure and perfected. It's a little shocking even to me.

I remember a comment Titus Chu made about the Blendeds in a leaders' gathering. He was explaining the reasons for the tensions and suspicions surrounding his own ministry and the GLA. He explained that the Blendeds, "see brother Lee as god, whereas I see him as a man." At the time I was a little shocked, thinking he was perhaps exaggerating, but now I believe otherwise. Of course, in typical fashion, TC placed the blame for their error on them, and not on Lee, his "spiritual father."

Some have asked who and what determines who the Blendeds are. The first and foremost criteria is their unwavering belief that Lee was god, yet I doubt they ever even allowed their minds to consider what they really believed about Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by KSA

I would really recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/Guru-Papers-M...ds=guru+papers

It would give a lot of insight on cult dynamics.

Hey KSA, so good to see you again!

Can you really wear shorts in Russia?

[UntoHim]

Consequently, the disciple entirely missed the real lesson of history: The guru's "getting" and self-enhancement are masked by images of enlightenment and selflessness and thus are made unconscious. Once his purity and hence superiority are taken for granted, it is assumed that he deserves to be "getting" precisely because he is thought enlightened. He can thus reprimand his disciple for the very activity he was involved in on a far grander scale without it seeming hypocritical. Who gets and who gives is never questioned because "spiritual" values mask what is really going on.

Man, does this one hits home like a 8 pound hammer right on the noggin. Are we certain this guy wasn't in the Local Church of Witness Lee?

The part I have underlined is a very good description of Witness Lee. He was always and forever "reprimanding his disciples" "for the very activity he was involved in on a far grander scale". Does anyone recall "The Perfecting Training"? Those training meetings were a red-letter example of what this guy has written here.

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The part I have underlined is a very good description of Witness Lee. He was always and forever "reprimanding his disciples" "for the very activity he was involved in on a far grander scale". Does anyone recall "The Perfecting Training"? Those training meetings were a red-letter example of what this guy has written here.

I was thinking the same thing.

I can still picture Lee sitting on the platform "perfecting" one brother. I can't remember his name (Art?), but he seemed to be gifted in the gospel, and talking to people about the Lord. In no time the poor brother was tearing himself to pieces in front of all, thinking that was pleasing God.

[Lisbon]

I was in the perfecting meetings and they were a complete farce. One young brother badgered Dick Bright unmercifully as WL looked on. You see what a real bond servant of Christ is.

What in the world is a bond servant? Is it really a dictator, king. top apostle, oracle? To hear RK's speaking at Lee's funeral does make one sick. But that is clearly what the Lord said when He caught the apostles bucking for top dog. "That is the way the gentiles carry on but it shall not be that way with you." Who ever will be leader, will be servant to all. WL's bible doesn't read the same as the NIV. Of course he writes his own recovery version as I think the JWs did also. OK for one cult, OK for another?

Lisbon

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

I was in the perfecting meetings and they were a complete farce. One young brother badgered Dick Bright unmercifully as WL looked on. You see what a real bond servant of Christ is.

What in the world is a bond servant?

A bond servant in non-LSM Christian fellowship is different than you would find in LSM fellowship. Within LSM fellowship bond servant is a paradox. In LSM practices a bond servant lords over others.

What is perfecting meetings? Is it willfully subjecting one's self to verbal abuse?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

A bond servant in non-LSM Christian fellowship is different than you would find in LSM fellowship. Within LSM fellowship bond servant is a paradox. In LSM practices a bond servant lords over others.

What is perfecting meetings? Is it willfully subjecting one's self to verbal abuse?

Lee used to talk about how Nee would listen to the sharing of trainees and then speak a super-perfecting word customized for that individual brother's perfecting. All in attendance would oooh and ahhh about how all-wise and all-knowing was Nee. It was the stuff of legends.

The Perfecting Training was Lee's Version of that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee used to talk about how Nee would listen to the sharing of trainees and then speak a super-perfecting word customized for that individual brother's perfecting. All in attendance would oooh and ahhh about how all-wise and all-knowing was Nee. It was the stuff of legends.

Nee had read Fenelon and Guyon and now was the ascended master, the Most Enlightened Person in the room, the 'seer of the vision in the present age'. If you didn't get this conceit then the church life wouldn't work for you. All you'd see was bullying brothers who elevated themselves above the flock and lorded over the saints. You had to put on the LC glasses to make it work.

The reason we're discussing Nee & Lee is because they really believed that they were better than the rest, and had somehow been sufficiently "perfected" and had thus "passed the riven veil"; that's what made their schtick so convincing. They didn't say, "I'm the apostle of the age", (wink, nod). They really believed it. Their socially-derived understanding put in them the unquestioned belief that absolute submission to the Most Enlightened Person, the ascended master, was the rocket ship to nirvana (or, the New Jerusalem). And hey, someone has to be MEP! Don't hold it against me if I'm the guru! That was God's choice, not mine!

So they produced books of esoteric theology, with secret raptures and ecclesiastical ages, consummating in their logical conjectures like the 'Processed Quadrune God-man', or the Four-in One God, and could simultaneously ignore their neighbor, and ignore much of the Bible (you know, the unhelpful parts of it), and ignore all the warnings not to do exactly what they were doing. Because they had the light. They had the vision of the age.

[OBW]

One of the early Life Study Trainings (still in the Anaheim Convention Center), Lee asked someone among the "young elite" to explain some esoteric concept that he had just covered in the message. Can't remember if it was Romans or Hebrews. But first one started in on it. Pretty quickly Lee sat him down as not getting it and asked another. I don't recall who was put on the spot, but was someone(s) like Dick Taylor and/or other somewhat young elders.

One by one he sat them back down until one seemed to get it right. And he (Lee) made a big deal of it. Funny thing was that I never could figure out what was different between the first one and the last (and all the ones in between). I got more of the sense of nit-picking over some single word that wasn't perfect or something like that. It always bothered me. But on the whole "we" were impressed that this was some complicated concept that was really hard to get right and Lee was the one who knew it and we didn't.

But while I cannot recall the content of the discussion, I know that I left with the sense that there was a molehill somewhere in there that had been blown into a mountain. Probably smoke and mirrors. I didn't have enough experience at the time to read back through the particular passage and challenge the premise, but it was always a little unsettling.

And yet evidently not unsettling enough. It took almost 10 more years to decide to leave.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Nee had read Fenelon and Guyon and now was the ascended master. . .

Nothing wrong with Fenelon and Guyon, or Penn-Lewis. Also nothing wrong with Eastern culture per se. Not inferior to my Western culture. And if Nee and Lee were frightened little men, hiding behind bravado and clouds of words, maybe I moreso.

But what happened with Nee and Lee is that they insisted that they had no culture; and we were convinced they had no self, no ego. Their "someone here has to be God's Anointed Seer" was an unquestioned and culturally-ingrained statement which they took as truth, and they convinced us it was so, and created an institution. Thus self-delusion became collectivized, institutionalized. Which is arguably much worse than our own personal foibles, however tough they may be to struggle through on a daily basis.

We thought we could be free of self by taking Nee as our person, the Ascended Master who supposedly had no self. Dead end.

Originally Posted by OBW

"we" were impressed that this was some complicated concept that was really hard to get right and Lee was the one who knew it and we didn't. . .

it was always a little unsettling. And yet evidently not unsettling enough. It took almost 10 more years to decide to leave.

It took what it took. There's an old Russian proverb that says, "No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back." How far someone went is how far they went. Turn back. (And it somewhat reminds of the prophet telling the seven Asian churches, "Repent". Same words they'd heard on day one.)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

I was in the perfecting meetings and they were a complete farce. One young brother badgered Dick Bright unmercifully as WL looked on. You see what a real bond servant of Christ is.

Sarcasm duly noted.

In complete contradistinction to the apostles' warning "not to think yourself higher than others" (cf Phil 2:3; Rom 12:3 &c), the subjective mysticism of Nee, combined with ingrained eastern thinking, opened the door for not MVP but MEP, "Most Enlightened Person", who could tell us the 'feeling in the Body' and what the latest 'flow from the throne' was. LC'ers even used similar terminology: Lee "had the light".

Once you got the essential LC revelation, if he then said that we were (stupid) mooing cows, we were, because he had the light. If he said that nobody on earth had seen what he'd seen, then this was true because he had the light. If he told us we were dark, confused and impure, we were, because he was more enlightened and pure. Relatively speaking, of course: he'd always "claim the blood" and give the "I am nothing" qualifier. But if he was in the room, he was unchallenged MEP.

No wonder Bill Mallon, John Ingalls and others got expelled. They saw the man behind the mask.