What differentiates a spiritual teacher from a guru? The guru offers themself as an instrument of freedom, liberation, awakening, enlightenment. Implicit in this is the assumption that the guru not only has first hand, embodied experience of what they offer, but also knows how to guide others to the same. Also implicit is the assumption of infallibility. The guru always knows. Gurus exist in many (Eastern) traditions. In each tradition the conceptualisation of the ‘goal’ and the means to realise it differs. Sometimes even to the extent of being contradictory of each other. Yet within them all there is a clearly stated and uninhibitedly implemented power dynamic
This dynamic is activated by the ‘chela’ simply in engaging sincerely with the guru. The guru has no choice but to accept them unless considered unsuitable, unready, unprepared. The guru acts as if they have a special spiritual status and a superior understanding of matters spiritual. The chela acts as much as possible in accordance with the injunctions of the guru. It is a power dynamic within which all the power is held by the guru. The effectiveness of the dynamic for the chela is a direct function of their ability to trust and surrender to the guru. From the outside this surrender can look like a submission, but it is voluntarily undertaken as an act of faith, in the guru.
This is a very dangerous game to play. Simply because the chela does not, can not know if the guru is genuine.
A spiritual teacher is someone who has something to teach that can help people to access and embody their spiritual nature. This is quite different from having incisive and inspiring things to say about spirituality and its implications. It is not necessary to have fully embodied the spiritual dimension of human nature. It is enough to know, from personal experience, how the method must be implemented, and what the effects of that implementation are likely to be: not only in terms of access and embodiment, but also of likely difficulties.
Given the danger inherent in the guru game, it is incumbent on any spiritual teacher not only to resist accidentally playing the role of guru, claiming special spiritual status or implying infallible authority, but also to make it clear that they are not offering themselves in those ways. Whether or not the message gets through is another matter.
The problem for the spiritual seeker lies first in not understanding these differences. Second, it lies in not understanding their own level of maturity and self-awareness. People usually tend to exaggerate both.
It is inherent in the guru dynamic that the chela surrenders completely, passing responsibility to the guru, who takes it. The spiritual teacher does not and can not assume responsibility for their students. Only for their own actions as teacher. The spiritual teacher is not an authority to the student except in the specifics of the methodology they are teaching. While the guru may recommend or impose behavioural norms, such as eating and sleeping regimes, the teacher must not. If they do then they blur the teacher/guru distinction and invite, albeit unintentionally, a different, nonconsensual power dynamic into play. One within which everyone is compromised.
Neither the guru nor the spiritual teacher is a therapist. The spiritual path is about embodying wholeness. The fact that this embodiment is almost bound to be therapeutic does not make it therapy. Neither the guru nor the spiritual teacher offer to resolve peoples' emotional or psychological problems. They offer two different approaches to disempowering the habits of resistance to life that cause ongoing suffering, regardless of clinical profile, although that profile must be taken into account as it surfaces.
This means that the spiritual teacher must have a sound and effective understanding of core human psychology, and its relationship to spirituality. At the heart of this is understanding the nature and role of the sense of self, and its pivotal role in compulsion, addiction, neurosis and psychosis, without needing to know their clinical details.
Especially in the guru dynamic, but also in spiritual methodologies, psychological and emotional confrontation and catharsis are inevitable. This being so, even without being trained in therapeutics, both guru and spiritual teacher need to be able to support and contain such eventualities. This is not the same as resolving the underlying issues.
The guru can do so, from their infallible status, in any way they please. Consent has been given: the guru is always in charge. Not so the spiritual teacher. They have not been given permission to play ‘god’ in the way that the guru has. They have a collaborative relationship with their students. There will of course be both power differentials and power dynamics within that relationship, but they will fluctuate in both intensity and direction, and be expressed in different ways and domains. The teacher is nothing more than a method instructor with no claim on any kind of spiritual, moral or behavioural superiority, and with no need to accept any such being inferred or assumed by their students.
The third problem for the spiritual seeker is the need to take responsibility for their own experience. This requires a maturity they may not have, within which they may be unable to recognise or accept their immaturity, nor their unreasonable assumptions, hopes and expectations. In such cases, no matter what the teacher says or does the student will tend to, even if only sometimes, unrealistically and irresponsibly put the teacher on a pedestal they neither claim nor inhabit.
The guru chela relationship is one that can be, and usually is to begin with, one within which guru is parent, chela is child. If both parties are sincere this can be enormously fruitful for the chela, who will eventually ‘grow up’ and no longer need a guru. This fruitfulness depends as much on the complete surrender of the chela, as it does on the unimpeachable authenticity of the guru. This growing up is often accompanied by a rejection of the guru.
The teacher student relationship is a collaborative one between consenting adults neither of whom requires power over nor submission to the other. Being adult the student takes responsibility for their own experience, ready to question, challenge and perhaps abandon the teacher according to their experience. Being fallible the teacher neither demands nor commands, but merely instructs an experiential method, with no attempt to impose anything ideological or behavioural.
Both guru and spiritual teacher are roles, or functions. They both have the same fundamental purpose: the dissolution of resistance to life. They go about it in different ways, which nevertheless may resemble each other. Either may mirror or provoke, but they do so from different places: infallibility and fallibility. The spiritual teacher may need to explain or justify their actions, the guru not.
The power and effectiveness of the guru do not reside in their (supposedly) all knowing, all seeing wisdom. They reside in the dynamic of the relationship with the chela. This dynamic will only succeed to the extent that it is upheld by the chela. Rather than guru chipping away at chela’s resistance with their wisdom, the chela rubs their own resistance away against the implacability of the guru. Implacability and infallibility are conferred on the guru by and within the devotion of the chela.
The spiritual teacher does not require, and will be hindered by, devotion from their students. Also by admiration, although not respect, appreciation or gratitude. They require critical enquiry from students for which they provide the means to direct that enquiry towards the self: self enquiry.
Self enquiry is both an enquiry into the nature of individual experience, and one undertaken by oneself, on oneself. It does not rely on external authority, but can be supported by the technical and conceptual ability of the spiritual teacher, who must have a clear, coherent and comprehensible understanding of the dynamics of individual experience, as well as a method that harnesses that understanding so the student can generate their own embodied experience. Equally the teacher’s understanding must have arisen from their embodied experience, and not be borrowed from others.
The guru does not need an equivalent conceptual clarity. They need perceptual acuity: the ability to see clearly the specific chains and particular blind spots that sustain the resistance of the chela, so they can mirror, challenge and provoke them. These particulars and specifics do not need to be known by the spiritual teacher only the signs of their presence: resistance. The more clearly the teacher understands the dynamics of resistance the easier it is to modify and direct their teaching. Most people have exactly the same chains and blind spots, albeit uniquely nested and configured.
The ‘self’ is the hub within which the specific spokes of resistance have been set, and around which they turn. By challenging the hub the spokes lose their power. While removing individual spokes weakens their hub it is not enough to dissolve it, as the spokes are so many. While individual spokes can be targeted and removed, the hub remains. When the hub is challenged and dissolves each individual spoke is weakened and loses its anchor (the self). The weaker a spoke becomes the less it activates and the more easily it can be recognised and relinquished. The less spokes there are the weaker the sense of self, and the more easily it can be relinquished.
Although there have been those who wanted or assumed me to be, I am not a guru. I have a method, both somatic and cognitive, which I offer in different ways. It is offered as a means of self enquiry whereby the nature of sensation, perception, cognition, volition, awareness and Consciousness can be clarified. This necessarily involves, and even requires, a weakening of resistance, at the heart of which is the impression of autonomous individuality: sense of separate self.
At the same time the method allows the spiritual dimension of human nature to be accessed, experienced and embodied. Access is a process of letting go. It is necessary but not adequate to embodiment. Embodiment depends on generating new, integrated pathways of action and perception. These pathways are created by movement, activated in stillness and stabilised in relationships within which the spokes of the ‘self’ can be willingly challenged and mirrored by others, which can include the teacher, partners, peers, friends, family and others.
My students need bring only two things to my teaching: a willingness to feel and a readiness to think. I am neither a fountain of wisdom from which you can quench your thirst, nor an example to be emulated. I am an ordinary human being with unflagging curiosity, and the gifts with which to share my discoveries with those willing to step out of the false safety of the known and enquire openly and deeply into the possibilities of being fully human.
This dynamic is activated by the ‘chela’ simply in engaging sincerely with the guru. The guru has no choice but to accept them unless considered unsuitable, unready, unprepared. The guru acts as if they have a special spiritual status and a superior understanding of matters spiritual. The chela acts as much as possible in accordance with the injunctions of the guru. It is a power dynamic within which all the power is held by the guru. The effectiveness of the dynamic for the chela is a direct function of their ability to trust and surrender to the guru. From the outside this surrender can look like a submission, but it is voluntarily undertaken as an act of faith, in the guru.
This is a very dangerous game to play. Simply because the chela does not, can not know if the guru is genuine.
A spiritual teacher is someone who has something to teach that can help people to access and embody their spiritual nature. This is quite different from having incisive and inspiring things to say about spirituality and its implications. It is not necessary to have fully embodied the spiritual dimension of human nature. It is enough to know, from personal experience, how the method must be implemented, and what the effects of that implementation are likely to be: not only in terms of access and embodiment, but also of likely difficulties.
Given the danger inherent in the guru game, it is incumbent on any spiritual teacher not only to resist accidentally playing the role of guru, claiming special spiritual status or implying infallible authority, but also to make it clear that they are not offering themselves in those ways. Whether or not the message gets through is another matter.
The problem for the spiritual seeker lies first in not understanding these differences. Second, it lies in not understanding their own level of maturity and self-awareness. People usually tend to exaggerate both.
It is inherent in the guru dynamic that the chela surrenders completely, passing responsibility to the guru, who takes it. The spiritual teacher does not and can not assume responsibility for their students. Only for their own actions as teacher. The spiritual teacher is not an authority to the student except in the specifics of the methodology they are teaching. While the guru may recommend or impose behavioural norms, such as eating and sleeping regimes, the teacher must not. If they do then they blur the teacher/guru distinction and invite, albeit unintentionally, a different, nonconsensual power dynamic into play. One within which everyone is compromised.
Neither the guru nor the spiritual teacher is a therapist. The spiritual path is about embodying wholeness. The fact that this embodiment is almost bound to be therapeutic does not make it therapy. Neither the guru nor the spiritual teacher offer to resolve peoples' emotional or psychological problems. They offer two different approaches to disempowering the habits of resistance to life that cause ongoing suffering, regardless of clinical profile, although that profile must be taken into account as it surfaces.
This means that the spiritual teacher must have a sound and effective understanding of core human psychology, and its relationship to spirituality. At the heart of this is understanding the nature and role of the sense of self, and its pivotal role in compulsion, addiction, neurosis and psychosis, without needing to know their clinical details.
Especially in the guru dynamic, but also in spiritual methodologies, psychological and emotional confrontation and catharsis are inevitable. This being so, even without being trained in therapeutics, both guru and spiritual teacher need to be able to support and contain such eventualities. This is not the same as resolving the underlying issues.
The guru can do so, from their infallible status, in any way they please. Consent has been given: the guru is always in charge. Not so the spiritual teacher. They have not been given permission to play ‘god’ in the way that the guru has. They have a collaborative relationship with their students. There will of course be both power differentials and power dynamics within that relationship, but they will fluctuate in both intensity and direction, and be expressed in different ways and domains. The teacher is nothing more than a method instructor with no claim on any kind of spiritual, moral or behavioural superiority, and with no need to accept any such being inferred or assumed by their students.
The third problem for the spiritual seeker is the need to take responsibility for their own experience. This requires a maturity they may not have, within which they may be unable to recognise or accept their immaturity, nor their unreasonable assumptions, hopes and expectations. In such cases, no matter what the teacher says or does the student will tend to, even if only sometimes, unrealistically and irresponsibly put the teacher on a pedestal they neither claim nor inhabit.
The guru chela relationship is one that can be, and usually is to begin with, one within which guru is parent, chela is child. If both parties are sincere this can be enormously fruitful for the chela, who will eventually ‘grow up’ and no longer need a guru. This fruitfulness depends as much on the complete surrender of the chela, as it does on the unimpeachable authenticity of the guru. This growing up is often accompanied by a rejection of the guru.
The teacher student relationship is a collaborative one between consenting adults neither of whom requires power over nor submission to the other. Being adult the student takes responsibility for their own experience, ready to question, challenge and perhaps abandon the teacher according to their experience. Being fallible the teacher neither demands nor commands, but merely instructs an experiential method, with no attempt to impose anything ideological or behavioural.
Both guru and spiritual teacher are roles, or functions. They both have the same fundamental purpose: the dissolution of resistance to life. They go about it in different ways, which nevertheless may resemble each other. Either may mirror or provoke, but they do so from different places: infallibility and fallibility. The spiritual teacher may need to explain or justify their actions, the guru not.
The power and effectiveness of the guru do not reside in their (supposedly) all knowing, all seeing wisdom. They reside in the dynamic of the relationship with the chela. This dynamic will only succeed to the extent that it is upheld by the chela. Rather than guru chipping away at chela’s resistance with their wisdom, the chela rubs their own resistance away against the implacability of the guru. Implacability and infallibility are conferred on the guru by and within the devotion of the chela.
The spiritual teacher does not require, and will be hindered by, devotion from their students. Also by admiration, although not respect, appreciation or gratitude. They require critical enquiry from students for which they provide the means to direct that enquiry towards the self: self enquiry.
Self enquiry is both an enquiry into the nature of individual experience, and one undertaken by oneself, on oneself. It does not rely on external authority, but can be supported by the technical and conceptual ability of the spiritual teacher, who must have a clear, coherent and comprehensible understanding of the dynamics of individual experience, as well as a method that harnesses that understanding so the student can generate their own embodied experience. Equally the teacher’s understanding must have arisen from their embodied experience, and not be borrowed from others.
The guru does not need an equivalent conceptual clarity. They need perceptual acuity: the ability to see clearly the specific chains and particular blind spots that sustain the resistance of the chela, so they can mirror, challenge and provoke them. These particulars and specifics do not need to be known by the spiritual teacher only the signs of their presence: resistance. The more clearly the teacher understands the dynamics of resistance the easier it is to modify and direct their teaching. Most people have exactly the same chains and blind spots, albeit uniquely nested and configured.
The ‘self’ is the hub within which the specific spokes of resistance have been set, and around which they turn. By challenging the hub the spokes lose their power. While removing individual spokes weakens their hub it is not enough to dissolve it, as the spokes are so many. While individual spokes can be targeted and removed, the hub remains. When the hub is challenged and dissolves each individual spoke is weakened and loses its anchor (the self). The weaker a spoke becomes the less it activates and the more easily it can be recognised and relinquished. The less spokes there are the weaker the sense of self, and the more easily it can be relinquished.
Although there have been those who wanted or assumed me to be, I am not a guru. I have a method, both somatic and cognitive, which I offer in different ways. It is offered as a means of self enquiry whereby the nature of sensation, perception, cognition, volition, awareness and Consciousness can be clarified. This necessarily involves, and even requires, a weakening of resistance, at the heart of which is the impression of autonomous individuality: sense of separate self.
At the same time the method allows the spiritual dimension of human nature to be accessed, experienced and embodied. Access is a process of letting go. It is necessary but not adequate to embodiment. Embodiment depends on generating new, integrated pathways of action and perception. These pathways are created by movement, activated in stillness and stabilised in relationships within which the spokes of the ‘self’ can be willingly challenged and mirrored by others, which can include the teacher, partners, peers, friends, family and others.
My students need bring only two things to my teaching: a willingness to feel and a readiness to think. I am neither a fountain of wisdom from which you can quench your thirst, nor an example to be emulated. I am an ordinary human being with unflagging curiosity, and the gifts with which to share my discoveries with those willing to step out of the false safety of the known and enquire openly and deeply into the possibilities of being fully human.