Are there any legit Gurus on ATS?

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


If you cannot accept evil you cannot except yourself.

We are alone, we just don't recognize that the 'other' people are you.

When light goes through a prism it is reflected as seprate colours but it all comes form the light.

We are here in a reflection.


Pink Floyd - Time

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

Where some, like Bluemule, would say that these things can all be forgiven, I say that they cannot. Some evil must never be allowed to be wiped away.

Your choice is between wholeness and perfection. If you can't forgive evil, then you can't be whole because in failing to forgive others, you can't forgive a part of yourself. So you spilt yourself.

That only leaves perfection. So you strive for it. But sooner or later, you will become your opposite. Yang always becomes yin. You will fall into im-perfection. You will unmask Darth Vader to see yourself behind the mask. To see the part of you that you split off from yourself. Your Nemesis. Your shadow-self.

So the question then is how to forgive. The answer is by undergoing the necessary altered state of consciousness. A state which is beyond the ego-self that you wear like a mask as you play the role of the Wandering Hero trying to wipe out evil. You've forgotten its a mask. You're like a god of the north pole trying to wipe out the south pole.

So you chop it off with your sword of unforgiveness.

What happens when you chop the south pole off a magnet?

reply to post by BlueMule


Sounds like you had an interesting adventure in alternate reality as such. Good for you! Samadi is a glimpse huh?

reply to post by BlueMule

Oh I think it is very much a competition to you - a competition to be a follower of the least evil tradition.

If I followed a tradition, and it had no evil, I would agree with you. I don't follow an established tradition though, and I do have a great evil, one which I am fully capable of succumbing too, and becoming myself. I like evil though. Sometimes the lex talion of old is right.

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing,
there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase
each other
doesn't make any sense.

The old men had died, thinking their sons were cowards,
their daughters, whores.
The temples fell into sand, so tiredly they fell,
weeping dry years.
I met a young girl once, many times;
she was mortal from the neck
so we only met in passing.
And she said to me
(so softly, lest I fall)
She said: 'My father died a desert; I'll die the rain.'

~ Jonas Samuelle

Words are funny, fickle things. Men see what they wish in them; from them, fear what scares them; and through them, try to make the world love them.

When somebody sends me Rumi I send them some Samuelle, or, if they're really lucky, Barker. When somebody sends me Buddha I give them back John Keats, or Billy Corgan. There is no means by which to measure the worth of a wordsmith. Words influence and touch us all in different ways.

While the ruminations of Rumi play to your personal perspective on the world, I do not believe in his field. If you do, I am glad you have found a man who's vision resonates with your own; do not expect it to do so with others.

Does one of my favorite poems touch you the way Rumi does? I would imagine not. Just as Rumi stirs not deeper sentiment inside of me.

The avenue of Christ and other avenues are not in conflict. Just as the north pole and the south pole are not in conflict.

The north and south poles have no philosophy, or belief structure. You are comparing apples to oranges. Christianity, and paganism are theologies moved by flesh-and-blood people. They kill each other over them. They are certainly in conflict. Just look at how the Christians have turned pagan gods, like Baal, Cernunnos, and Pan into the Devil.

They are in a dance. They are polarities like yin and yang

Not so. Polarities like Yin-and-Yang balance and complement each other. The mystical path of Christ does not allow for pagan idolatry, or heathen spirituality. Christ attempts to indoctrinate a Christ-central system; one with Himself, and His Father, as the focal point.

Again, you yourself, I contend, are not a mystic Christian. You rely very heavily on Taoism, and the ruminations of Rumi, who was a Muslim. You believe in the duality of existence and a perfect blend between good and evil. In your mind, all faiths and fronts are equally welcome. These are not Christian mystical or spiritual ideals. They are entirely separate from the words of Christ. It is my belief that you present the face of Christ because He is the most readily acceptable form of spirituality for one to safely practice. People do not turn a callous eye toward you if you say you believe in Jesus as the source for your spiritual beliefs.

Jesus was not Lao Tzu, Confucius, the Buddha, Bodhidharma, or Rumi. You admire their teachings, yet you pretend that they come from Christ. Why do you do this?

But hey, that is ok. Where you are is where you're supposed to be right now. Eventually you'll get there.

You speak as if where you are is somehow superior to where I am, yet, mere sentences ago you said:

All spiritual paths are part of a whole

I see hypocrisy in these two statements. If I am where I need to be, and everywhere is part of the same reality, then how can there be anywhere else for me to go? Where you are is the same place as where I am, is it not?

There are those nasty words again; putting us up where we wish to be, but forgetting about the places they propose to put other people.

I'll meet you at the end, Bluemule. Enjoy the path your Christ sets before you, but don't forget: He's not the one who's lessons you most soundly resonate with.

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

If I followed a tradition, and it had no evil, I would agree with you. I don't follow an established tradition though, and I do have a great evil, one which I am fully capable of succumbing too, and becoming myself. I like evil though. Sometimes the lex talion of old is right.

I don't exactly follow a tradition either. If you recall correctly I said I am partial to Christian mysticism. You interpreted that to mean I had "chosen the Christian mystical tradition". Even though in the same sentence I said my theology "transcends any culture or conceptual border or even words."

But like you said words are funny, fickle things. I like your Samuelle poem very much. It tasted sweet.

'I saw grief drinking a cup
of sorrow and called out,
"It tastes sweet, does it not?"
"You've caught me," grief answered,
"and you've ruined my business.
How can I sell sorrow,
when you know it's a blessing?"

-Rumi

reply to post by Th0r

If you cannot accept evil you cannot except yourself

Accepting evil, forgiving evil, and allowing evil are all different things.

I accept evil.
I can forgive minor evil.
I cannot forgive major evil.
And I try not to allow any evil, where possible.

If you can forgive Hitler for killing roughly 10 million people during the Holocaust (including Jews, homosexuals, Romani, Catholics, the impaired, Soviets, etc) and accept that it was necessary, then OK. I do not agree. I still believe there is real evil in this world which should never be forgiven, or forgotten.

To forgive is a great thing; to forgive everyone is a foolish thing.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by BlueMule


I do recall you saying such, and expressing the need for the mystic to repair the mystical tradition if it does not suit the mystics standards. My contention, though, has always been that Christ is irredeemable.

The rest of your chosen suits are certainly amendable, blend-able, and workable.

While, for reasons stated earlier, I do not agree with Taoism, Buddhism, Sufism, or Confucianism, I see the value in the works of their learned masters. Much more value than I see in any of the teachings of Christ.

I'm glad you liked Samuelle. I don't mind Rumi, I just don't see the perspective of spirituality which he presents is all.

This little life is all we must endure,
The grave's most holy peace is ever sure,
We fall asleep and never wake again;
Nothing is of us but the mouldering flesh
Whose elements dissolve and merge afresh,
In earth, air, water, plants, and other men.

...if you would not this poor life fulfill,
Lo, you are free to end it when you will,
Without the fear of waking after death.

~ James Thomson: City of Dreadful Night

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by BlueMule

 

My contention, though, has always been that Christ is irredeemable.

Then you damn your inner Christ, which is otherwise known as your inner Buddha-consciousness. Your Atman. Your soul. Whatever you want to call it. You just create a division between the you that you think you are and the you that you really are. Tat Tvam Asi.

reply to post by BlueMule

Then you damn your inner Christ, which is otherwise known as your inner Buddha-consciousness. Your Atman. Your soul. Whatever you want to call it.

Such a passionate, angry, uprising. I believe you do love your Christ, much more than you let on. Perhaps you are a Christian mystic after all.

You just create a division between the you that you think you are and the you that you really are.

Buddha did not put stock in the atman, as he believed it was dissolved, along with ego, and consciousness, upon achieving nirvana. Therefore, I don't mind letting my atman go, as it is not necessary in the long run if "Buddha-consciousness" ends up being the truth. Although, Christ-consciousness is the proper term, as the Buddha did not accept or believe in consciousness; have you read the Surungama Sutra?

I see no reason not to distance myself from the teachings of Christ, as Christ has done more harm than good, hindered civilization and society much more than aided it, in the long run.

Tat Tvam Asi

In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

~ Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


"I see no reason not to distance myself from the teachings of Christ, as Christ has done more harm than good, hindered civilization and society much more than aided it, in the long run. "

jesus himself ( yea i knew him) did little harm,,, it was the journalists who followed his story which created all the stir you are referring too... jesus was mainly about doing little harm,,,, you really blame the man jesus for all that has happened in his image, story, and thoughts?

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

I see no reason not to distance myself from the teachings of Christ, as Christ has done more harm than good, hindered civilization and society much more than aided it, in the long run.

You see no reason because you haven't had the mystical experiences that transformed the ego-self of Jesus into the Christ. Nor have you had the experience that turns someone into a Buddha. Or a Guru. Or a shaman. Or a Thomas Anderson into a Neo. Or a farmer in a Jedi. Or...

In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

...lead into gold.

reply to post by ImaFungi

you really blame the man jesus for all that has happened in his image, story, and thoughts

Yes, I do. Jesus came with a message, and He gathered twelve followers whom He taught and preached His message to. He did this for a long time, so there's no reason why any of them, getting the message directly from Him, should have arrived at any conclusions other than the ones which He intended.

There are so many hoops that people jump through in an attempt to disconnect Jesus from Christianity, but it simply cannot be done. Christianity is the religion of the teachings of Christ, it is named after Him, and started by those closest to Him. If you want morality and values that are not a part of Christianity, then find someone who actually taught those values, and don't try to take Jesus out of Christianity.


reply to post by BlueMule

You see no reason because you haven't had the mystical experiences that transformed the ego-self of Jesus into the Christ

You're right, Christ has never come to me and made Himself into anything other than what He was: a religious figure with a personal religious view, which the people He taught took into their own hands and carried forth.

Nor have you had the experience that turns someone into a Buddha

I certainly have not, as I have no desire to become a bodhisattva. Nor, however, have you. You still cling to an actual unity, and existence of things. Buddha did not.

Or a Guru. Or a shaman

I am definitely not a Guru, or a Yogi.
I am a shaman though.

Or a Thomas Anderson into a Neo

Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

Or a Luke in a Jedi. Or...

The Noguardians are definitely not the religious or spiritual choice I wish to pursue. Speak like this forever, without getting a headache, I cannot.

...lead into gold

I prefer chemistry to alchemy.
Science to pseudoscience.
Astronomy to astrology.
Reality to illusion.
Fact to fantasy.

Keep your Christ, I'll take the spirit of the Earth, over that which seeks to supplant it.

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

you really blame the man jesus for all that has happened in his image, story, and thoughts

Yes, I do. Jesus came with a message, and He gathered twelve followers whom He taught and preached His message to. He did this for a long time, so there's no reason why any of them, getting the message directly from Him, should have arrived at any conclusions other than the ones which He intended.

Yes there is. There's a darn good reason.

You can't get the message directly from a mystic without having the mystical experiences that the message refers to. There is no other way to share a mystical frame of reference.

So when a mystic teaches something to non-mystics, it is distorted over time. The idea is to keep a mystical tradition alive in the religion which can update the mystical function of the religion. Update it by putting the mystical expriences in modern metaphors and terms as the culture advances. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

There are so many hoops that people jump through in an attempt to disconnect Jesus from Christianity, but it simply cannot be done.

It's not about disconnecting Jesus from Christianity. It's about connecting Jesus to mysticism. He was a mystic whose message was misunderstood by non-mystics. As a result of this misunderstanding Christianity split into an esoteric layer and an exoteric layer.

The esoteric or inner layer of Christianity connects Christianity to the perennial philosophy. Despite the exoteric outer coating.

I am a shaman though.

Have you performed a soul-retrieval for anyone? Or healing? Or divination?

Or a Thomas Anderson into a Neo

Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

Not at all. The Matrix is an apt mystical metaphor.

I prefer chemistry to alchemy.

It sounds like you think alchemy was about trying to turn common lead into common gold. Do you?

Aurum Nostrum Non Vulgi

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I see what your saying and get it and its all good.,.,,.. but i see jesus as more of platos philosopher king...

do you think a tribe should have a leader? if not a group of leaders or all of them leaders,, should they not obey and follow some law or order to allow them to operate as a tribe and shape their path through time? Is it possible for humanity on earth to live as a large happy and orderly tribe? if that is not desireed to be experienced by yourself,, can yourself, observing from the outside,, agree that it may be a good thing for humanity to act and behave in such a manner,, for the betterment of each member and the whole? and if not, if everyman shall be completely for himself and his own supreme leader, then what intelligent and wise force is organizing the whole? who and what decides the wholes path and contrasted to what other option?

reply to post by ImaFungi


The thing is, you can see Jesus as whatever you want. It does not mean that he actually is, or was, the thing you see him as.

Further, you make the fallacy of assuming that life, specifically the coming of homo sapiens requires some kind of order, or governance to have been there before it. I contend that order, civilization, culture, morals, values, and ethics are subjective. That they arose not from an enlightened member, or some external force (which many would call God) but from simple observation. As a species our prime operative for 10,000 years was to continue the species existence. To do this, we needed offspring. If we went around murdering each other all day, we could not continue our familial line. If we stayed separated then we fell prey to carnivorous predators. As such, we developed communal bands, tribes if you will, in which we traveled. We protected each other not because of God, or the spirit, but out of the necessity to survive and continue our line.

There was no "unmoved mover," no "first cause," and no God behind it all. Life arose by chance, evolved through careful trial-and-error, and developed civilized society out of need. When we learned to build walls, harness fire, and use potent tools we conquered our enemies in nature. Having less to worry about, and more free time, we opted to explore the inner workings of our minds. Then we began to make connections between ourselves, our world, and the unseen world we believed was behind natural occurrences.

That is my theory on the whole thing. Take it, or leave it as you may.

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

The thing is, you can see Jesus as whatever you want. It does not mean that he actually is, or was, the thing you see him as.

Further, you make the fallacy of assuming that life, specifically the coming of homo sapiens requires some kind of order, or governance to have been there before it. I contend that order, civilization, culture, morals, values, and ethics are subjective. That they arose not from an enlightened member, or some external force (which many would call God) but from simple observation. As a species our prime operative for 10,000 years was to continue the species existence. To do this, we needed offspring. If we went around murdering each other all day, we could not continue our familial line. If we stayed separated then we fell prey to carnivorous predators. As such, we developed communal bands, tribes if you will, in which we traveled. We protected each other not because of God, or the spirit, but out of the necessity to survive and continue our line.

There was no "unmoved mover," no "first cause," and no God behind it all. Life arose by chance, evolved through careful trial-and-error, and developed civilized society out of need. When we learned to build walls, harness fire, and use potent tools we conquered our enemies in nature. Having less to worry about, and more free time, we opted to explore the inner workings of our minds. Then we began to make connections between ourselves, our world, and the unseen world we believed was behind natural occurrences.

That is my theory on the whole thing. Take it, or leave it as you may.

~ Scribe

true,,, and i simply view jesus,, not as perfect,,, but as a manifestation of ration and reason,,, one who regurgitated information and solutions to internally calculated logical problems regarding humanity,, good and evil ( sin),, and mans connection with nature,.,.

it does not matter about order coming before homo sapiens,,, yet the order that comes about from homo sapiens and that order which leads homo sapiens through time towards prosperity and progression, including the solution of problems that come about,.,. there are many variables and details about how man and women interact with one another on this planet,, and this can be a great number of different ways at any and all times, and there is potential for it to be completely different then it is now,, do you think objectively there can be a best way for human life to be ordered on the planet ( order having to do with everything humans do and allow and disallow others to do,, perception of themselves, others, and nature) ,.,.,. do you think that humans do anything to organize humanity in order? do you think they should do anything or allow "nature" to run its course? do you think some of jesus' ideas could be seen as a good way for humanity to coexist on this planet, compared to other possible ways? do you think the established systems and ways of life on earth is near perfect? near organized or orderly? do you think it should try to progress towards an image of perfection,, or not bother thinking of these things at all? i am not speaking about your personal feelings about living in a society although in a way i am,,, the way i am looking at it is,, if you were a spirit hovering above earth, and you had a family that was going to incarnate on the planet earth, and everything that is born on the planet earth begins from the same situation as your spirit self,,, what way would you want the species of intelligent life you incarnate into, behave with one another, for maximum happiness, prosperity, and success for all, including yourself....... its metaphorical but i believe relates to the situation every civilized human finds themselves in...

reply to post by BlueMule


If you caught the meaning of the Medieval Latin palindrome, than by now you should understand the meaninglessness of this entire conversation.

I could only assume that you had, but here we are, circling around and around again, like moths to a lantern.

Perhaps I was wrong.

Let me ask you this, where do you think any mystic got their message? Do you think they saw some "other world" and came back to our world with a world-changing message?

They didn't.

What the mystic does is sojourn out into the world where he then observes it very carefully. When he comes to what he feels is a vital, crucial element of human nature, or life's nature, or the nature of the cosmos, he returns to the kingdom and proclaims to have had enlightenment (typically out in the wilderness). His words are no more, or less, esoteric than before he left. He just wraps them in fanciful language.

The reality is, anyone who observes the world long enough arrives at the same contentions as the mystic; and often times evolves beyond them. Why do you think people like Jung incorporated the mystical into their psychoanalysis so frequently? They understood that mystical experience is a collaboration of consciousness and observation. Nothing requiring "initiation" or a "mystical experience," only the ability to think.

Christ came to fulfill the prophecies of the Hebrew people, who, in turn, created their mystic tradition off of Egypt and Mesopotamia, who were influenced by Sumer. Much of Christ's message exists in every culture before Him. He was not riding some great heavenly vibration. Only repeating, in his own words, what the common spiritual and religious teachers of the past had been saying for 4000 years.

As for shamanism...

Healing? Yes. I have done it, and have had it done to me. I don't rely on it though, as spiritual healing is far less effective then helping people maintain a healthy life-style, or turning to basic every-day medicines to cover up symptoms while their bodies deal with healing on their own time.

Divination? I read palms, cast Tarot cards, used to read auras, cast horoscopes and archetype wheels, and even have a small understanding of meteorology so I can predict weather patterns too! I don't believe in slaughtering any animals to read their intestines, skrying in a bowl of water, or any other New Age techniques.

Soul-retrieval? Nope. It cannot be done. People don't need a soul-retrieval, they need self-confidence, love, psychological help, and sometimes medicine. Any "shaman" can run along and pretend to retrieve a piece of their damaged soul. A real shaman teaches them how to heal themselves, and realize their soul never left them... if they have one at all (see previous reply, I don't believe in a soul).

You're very much into the New Age philosophies. I'm going to have trouble discussing them if you delve in much further, as I recognize the New Age for the sham and con that it is. So, if you ask me about talking to Dolphins, discovering my star-seed, performing crystal therapy, or organizing my furniture via the rules of one of the numerous Feng Shui outlines... I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. All of that stuff is crap and I don't adhere to it.

None-the-less, enjoy your path. As before, I'll meet you at the end and we'll compare the roads we took.

~ Scribe

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Here is a link to one of the best website on spiritual matters, which I hope many of you are acquainted with:

www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org...

One of it's many pages is one about the Guru, which is the practitioner who has achieved the highest levels of attainment.

As Spirituality is subtle or intangible in nature, it is difficult to identify with certainty who is a spiritually evolved guide or Guru. A Guru is very different to a teacher or a preacher. He is a beacon of spiritual light in our world, and teaches us the universal spiritual principles that underlie all religions and cultures.

The site proposes that spiritual level can be described on a level from 1-100%. Spiritual Levels

A person is characterized as Guru at 70%, and the site estimates there to be 500 between 70-75 worldwide, 50 between 76-85, two from 86-90 and two more from 91-100.

That's 554 worldwide guru's, folks. In a population of seven billion, it comes out to one in every 12,635,379.

As of today there are 267,553 members on ATS. A little over half have posted, and the vast majority who have posted are under 20 total posts. We have less than 35,000 who could be considered regular posters (criteria more than 20 posts)

Now, this forum is can be of special quality when it comes to spiritual knowledge, but you see a good handful of people who seem to post as if they at the highest level of enlightenment.

If there are ten true Gurus on this site that would be astounding, and more likely there are zero. We have to be careful of listening to people overstating their enlightenment. This is highly deceitful may be a more damaging lie than for example, a political one, because you are shaping your overall world view based on it.

There may be a higher potential for saints, which by the site's estimate there is a little over 10,500 worldwide. Some saints are at equal level as a guru, but the guru is more effective in managing that high level. Check out the sites.

Any members of high enlightenment willing to identify themselves?

Or general discussion about the measurement system on this site...can a spiritual level be quantified at all?


How about speculation on breaking down the 554 gurus by nationality? Any in the US? Can you name any? Eckhart Tolle? Deepak Chopra? Would they qualify?

Any members of high enlightenment willing to identify themselves?

I am the Last Prophet on earth...gurus are so beneath me ...gAh !

PLUS...it's no such thing as the spiritual level...because you never die'....?
gurus

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by BlueMule

 

If you caught the meaning of the Medieval Latin palindrome, than by now you should understand the meaninglessness of this entire conversation.

I could only assume that you had, but here we are, circling around and around again, like moths to a lantern.

Perhaps I was wrong.

Let me ask you this, where do you think any mystic got their message? Do you think they saw some "other world" and came back to our world with a world-changing message?

They didn't.

Some of them did. I know because I did. And therefore I recognize it in them. My studies of comparative mysticism also help me re-cognize it in every tradition. I see the harmony.

"Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology, the thought has remained a stranger... in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one, not merely similar or identical..." -Erwin Schrödinger

What the mystic does is sojourn out into the world where he then observes it very carefully.

No that's what a philosopher does. A mystic on the other hand sojourns inward to altered states of consciousness. Such as those which are induced by yoga. States such as a unitive experience or an ego-death experience. He observes them carefully.

The reality is, anyone who observes the world long enough arrives at the same contentions as the mystic; and often times evolves beyond them. Why do you think people like Jung incorporated the mystical into their psychoanalysis so frequently? They understood that mystical experience is a collaboration of consciousness and observation. Nothing requiring "initiation" or a "mystical experience," only the ability to think.

Jung incorporated the mystical into his psychoanalysis because he found that ancient images of mysticism and myth spontaneously appear in the dreams of his modern patients. He found that dreams are private myths, and myths are public dreams.

It means that the ancient mystics didn't just sit around cooking up myths and symbols and metaphysical models while pondering natural mysteries. Instead of that they would induce altered states of consciousness by ritual magic, meditation, entheogens, fasting, etc. By so doing they would tap into the collective unconscious.

Jung found that there is a collective unconscious. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are everywhere. For example there is the archetype of the trickster. It appears throughout world religion and myth in various forms. Coyote, for example. Loki. And so on. The reason this archetype appears as such a consistent constellation of characteristics is because its a part of our psyche... in our blood. Not because of plagarism.

Healing? Yes. I have done it, and have had it done to me.

If you wouldn't mind saying, what did you heal and have healed?

Divination? I read palms, cast Tarot cards, used to read auras, cast horoscopes and archetype wheels, and even have a small understanding of meteorology so I can predict weather patterns too! I don't believe in slaughtering any animals to read their intestines, skrying in a bowl of water, or any other New Age techniques.

Used to read auras? But not anymore? And you currently read palms? By what principle does palm reading work? By Jungian synchronicity?

Soul-retrieval? Nope. It cannot be done. People don't need a soul-retrieval, they need self-confidence, love, psychological help, and sometimes medicine. Any "shaman" can run along and pretend to retrieve a piece of their damaged soul. A real shaman teaches them how to heal themselves, and realize their soul never left them... if they have one at all (see previous reply, I don't believe in a soul).

Then you've never been to the 'underworld', so to speak? That is to say, you've never entered an ecstatic shamanic trance in order to interact with archetypes of the collective unconscious? Archetypes in symbolic (mythological) form? Such as the form of Dumuzi? Christ and Dumuzi...both are manifestations of the rebirth archetype or the Self. Both are shepards. Same archetype, different cultural mythological internally generated form.

It's not plagarism that the Christians did. Religions don't resemble each other because they copy each other. They resemble each other because the same archetypes of the collective unconscious are manifesting to mystics from all cultures but they do it in an internally generted numinous interactive form that has precisely folded multiple meanings consistent with a system. A shaman undergoes the 'shamanic crack-up' and enters the collective unconscious to interact with the archetypes. Have you ever done that?

reply to post by MassOccurs

I think that the capacity to measure requires the ability to be measured. How do we know how long 12 feet is? We use a tape measure, but how was it determined where on that tape measure a 12 foot mark should be placed? Therefore, the only way to measure a persons spirituality when related to a guru, is to have a guru create a tool to measure and the only real tool to measure spirituality of a person to determine if they are a guru is to talk to a guru. If you haven't seen it yet, note how circular this is. This means that spirituality would have to be given some kind of quantifiable property. Would this be the number of people who feel they are enlightened? Or would it be how many hours a day a person meditates? Either way, any element that measures spiritual enlightenment for the purposes of giving the title of guru to someone will always be based on personal perceptions. So this then brings us to what is a legitimate guru? I would infer that there may be many people that have a unique spiritual perspective that may seem enlightened to one individual and a bag of crap to another. To one that person must be a guru, to the other that person is a crackpot.
I would then say that there may be no guru's of any kind that exist and therefore there can never be a legitimate guru on ATS.
This, however, does not mean that people who are not guru's don't have good solid spiritual wisdom. It does mean that the answers are usually found within yourself and the wisdom, insight, and spiritual enlightenment presented by others is only valuable when tempered with a persons own perspective.