Guru Ploys
People whose power is based on the surrender of others develop a repertoire
of techniques for deflecting and undermining anything that questions or
challenges their status, behavior, or beliefs.
Th deceit underlying most ploys is that the guru has no self interest at
all. The traditional ideal of enlightenment allows this deceit free reign,
because the guru is placed in a category beyond the knowledge and judgement
of others. From here, gurus can rationalize any contradictory behavior.
Though some gurus say that doubts are healthy, they subtly punish them.
Doubt is not the way to get into the inner circle.
Another ploy is calling whatever seems problematic "a test of faith."
Since those without self-trust look for certainty in others, power is just
there for the taking by anyone who puts out a message, with certitude, that
tells people what they want to hear.
To maintain control, it is necessary to undermine self-trust. This is
insidiously done by removing the ways in which people can build trust in
themselves--by utilizing one's personal, firsthand experience as feedback.
Gurus undercut reason as a path to understanding. When they do allow
inquiry, they often place the highest value on paradox. Paradox easily
lends itself to mental manipulation: no matter what position you take, you
are always shown to be missing the point, the point being the guru knows
something you do not.
What appears to be a strong bond between guru and disciple is illusory, as
it depends solely upon the disciple's acknowledging the guru's authority.
Should that break, little remains.
Even those on the lowest rung can feel superior to those who have not had
the intelligence to become members.
To those observing such authoritarian groups on the outside, it appears
members give up their power to the leader. But most disciples did not have
very much personal power to begin with.
Although many gurus they do not need any special treatment and would be as
happy in cave, the power an adulation at their disposal are more seductive
than any drug.
Looking carefully at a guru's inner circle is extremely revealing. Those
closest to him, his most dedicated students, display better than anything
else where his teaching leads after years of exposure.
What is also displayed is who he prefers to have around him. Do disciples
ever "graduate" and become self-defining adults, or do they remain obedient
and tied to the guru? Are they strong and interesting in their own right,
or are they boring sycophants who continually feed his ego? It is also very
enlightening to observe how gurus treat and refer to those who leave their
fold.
The person at the apex if a hierarchical pyramid cannot show weakness or
real commonality with those below. Many gurus vociferously claim they
discourage worshipful attitudes in their followers, alas, to no avail.
This is another manipulation of image, the reality being that gurus are
powerful enough to construct whatever environment around them they want.
Especially in situations involving power, it is most important to pay
attention to what people do than what they say.
...this includes the power to make people who are being callously
manipulated believe they are freer than everyone else.
Gurus likewise do many things to ensure that their disciples' prime
emotional allegiance is towards them.
In the realm of sexuality, the two prevalent ways control is exerted are
through either celibacy or promiscuity. Although seemingly opposite, both
serve the same function: they minimize the possibilities of people bonding
deeply with each other, thus reducing factors that compete with the guru
for attention.
Fostering promiscuity, impersonal sex, and interchangeable partners
accomplishes the same agenda as celibacy. It trivializes sexual attraction
and undermines coupling.
Extremes in emotionally disconnected sex also disconnect the desire for
closeness with another, especially when intimacy is pejoratively labelled
attachment. This makes it easy for the guru to be the central emotional
bond. As a result, many disciples gradually give less importance to sex.
They take this as a sign of progress, for after all, they tried sex to
their hearts content and seemed to have outgrown it, precisely as promised.
Not coincidentally, this also increased their faith in the guru's wisdom
and made them available to work harder on whatever agenda the guru
prescribed. This answers the riddle of how promoting detached promiscuity
eventually turns dedicated hedonists into dedicated workers.
If an authority not only expects to be obeyed without question, but either
punishes or refuses to deal with those who do not, that authority is
authoritarian.
Stages of cults
Authoritarian groups with a leader who has few constraints (our definition
of a cult) derive their intense feelings of loyalty and unity from erecting
huge walls between insiders and outsiders.
Most cults follow a predictable progression of two distinct stages, which
indicates that what is involved is more a function of how authoritarian
structures work than of the particular teachings of a given guru.
This is an easy, mechanical route to intimacy that will be attractive as
long as alienation is rife.
Such rigid boundaries render cults both brittle and easily threatened,
leaving only proselytizing or paranoia as ways of relating to others.
Cults generally put out a similar message, each proclaiming their
specialness. The leader at the group are touted to be at the cutting edge
or awareness, spirituality, evolution (whatever).
As long as they are gaining in strength and membership, this attitude is
reinforced. Believing they are on the crest of a wave, the feeling within
the group and the leader is one of optimism and satisfaction. Their stance
towards outsiders is one of benign superiority. Others will catch up or
see the light in due time.
Within the community, there is a sense of both intimacy and potency, and a
celebratory, party like atmosphere often reigns. Everything seems perfect,
the guru is accessible, charming, fun.
Power and certainty do feel better than weakness and confusion.
Unfortunately, such feelings make self delusion more rather than less
likely.
A time inevitably comes when the power and popularity of the group begins
to wane...the apocalyptic phase enters and the party is over.
Then one of two things generally happens: The first is that the guru's
message turns pessimistic or doomsday, voicing something like this: " soon
civilization is going to break down and face amazing disasters, except for
us who are wisely withdrawing to protect our purity." The other is that to
attract more people the group makes increasingly bizarre promises.
Any member who leaves threatens the cohesiveness of the whole group.
This mounting mistrust is not wholly paranoid, there is some reason for it,
because as the group becomes more closed and bizarre, outsiders react more
negatively.
The transition from optimistic expansionism to the paranoid doomsday mode
involves heavy turnover of people. Those not really "serious" leave and
others begin to surreptitiously question the leader's omniscience. In an
attempt to counteract this, this group becomes more militaristic, demanding
even greater obedience.
The fun is over. The rewards are now put into the distant future, and are
achievable only through hard work.
This glorification of work always involves improving the leader's property,
increasing his wealth or some grandiose project.
Though the guru needs his disciples even more attached to him, he becomes
more remote, sending his dictates down the line.
Often, he consciously or unconsciously blames those around him for the
failure of his aspirations.
As the group's isolation increases, so does its paranoia towards outsiders.
those who drop out are often threatened.
Like religions, cults offer meaning, purpose, identity, and community. But
the feeling of unity is more intense in cults as their internal
cohesiveness depends on protecting the purity of the group from outsiders.
Thus there is relentless group pressure for loyalty and conformity.
Authority, Hierarchy, and Power
Mental or psychological authoritarianism comes from an inner urge to obey
someone or something that is viewed as higher, more powerful, morally
superior, or more knowledgeable--or to be that for someone else. These two
stances are not mutually exclusive, but usually co-exist in the same person
and are triggered by different circumstances.
The corruptions of power occur when maintaining power becomes central and
more important than its affect on others. It s power within a hierarchy
that lends itself to the greatest abuse and corruption.
Since authoritarianism is inherently hierarchical, one can easily think
that hierarchy itself is necessarily authoritarian. This is because
hierarchies import an unequal distribution of power that seems inevitably
to congeal into authoritarian structures.
Not all authority is authoritarian and it is crucial to distinguish the
difference.
We too value and respect loyalty--if deserved; duty--if self generated; and
even obedience -- if freely contracted along a defined, specific and
limited band of activity. But when loyalty, duty and obedience are valued
in themselves, they become the rationale for using others without regard to
their well being.
If an authority no only expects to be obeyed without question, but either
punishes or refuses to deal with those who do not, that authority is
authoritarian.
What this boils down to is whether a hierarchy is essentially power driven
or task-driven:
1. What is its purpose?
2. Who decides if this purpose is being fulfilled and how is this
decided?
3. How free are the members of the hierarchy to enter and leave it?
That is, how much coercion is involved in getting people to
belong and stay?
4. How responsive is it to change from within or without, and how
open is it to internal or external feedback? This includes who
determines what is even considered relevant feedback.
5. In what direction does power flow? Does it only flow from top to
bottom, or are there mechanisms within the structure of the
hierarchy that give the lower rungs a say in who the higher rungs
are and what they do?
Determining whether a hierarchy is task or power driven is obscured because
powerdriven hierarchies almost always present themselves as performing
tasks.
Especially with tasks that never end, unless the hierarchies have
mechanisms to ensure that they are task driven, will most likely become
power driven.
When power and privileges flow from position, protecting the position
easily becomes the main concern.
Recognizing authoritarian control
Surrendering to a guru brings instant intimacy with all who share the same
values...Acceptance by and identification with the group induce a loosening
of personal boundaries [which] increase the emotional content of ones life,
bringing purpose, meaning and hope. It is no wonder that who join such
groups rave about how much better they feel previously.
Surrender is the glue that binds guru and disciple. Being a disciple
offers the closest approximation (outside of mental institutions) to the
special configuration of infancy.
Once again, one experiences being at the center of the universe--if not
directly (the guru occupies that space), at least closer to the center than
one could have thought possible.
Surrendering to an authority who dictates what's right is a quick route to
feeling more virtuous.
That act of surrender itself can feel like a giving up or a diminishing of
one's ego, which is presented as a sign of spiritual progress.
No matter how much better one initially feels, in the long run anything
that undermines self-trust is detrimental to becoming an adult.
Many who are involved in authoritarian surrender adamantly deny that they
are. Those who see the dissembling in other gurus or leaders an find
countless ways to believe that their guru is different.
It is not at all unusual to be in an authoritarian relationship and not
know it.
Any of the following are strong indicators or belonging to an authoritarian
group:
1. No deviation from the party line is allowed. Anyone who has
feelings or thoughts contrary to the accepted perspective is made
to feel wrong or bad for having them.
2. Whatever the authority does is regarded as perfect or right.
Thus behaviors that would be questioned in others are made to
seem different or proper.
3. One trusts that the leader or others in the group know what is
best.
4. It is difficult to communicate with anyone not in the group.
5. One finds oneself defending the actions of the leader or other
members without having first hand knowledge of what occurred.
6. At times one is confused and fearful without knowing why. This
is a sign that doubts are being repressed.
The only way any living system works well is to have information flowing
freely between its parts and its environment. The guru/disciple
relationship cuts off this flow of information for both, creating a
feedback-proof system.
Although one's individual boundaries are open to the group, the group's
boundaries are closed to outsiders. Ultimately, one only accepts and feels
comfortable with those either within the system or open to proselyting.
Most often those who become involved in such groups could not conceive of
themselves as subject to authoritarian manipulation. They saw themselves
rather as true spiritual adventurers, unafraid to push against the
boundaries of convention.
But it is only the authority of the guru that gives people the permission
and freedom to "act out." ... direction and permission from an authority
combined with group pressure moved many to act out in ways they were not
capable of.
This kind of freedom is a real illusion...to rebel against one authority
(society) by accepting another (a leader who gives permission to rebel
merely shifts allegiance while giving the illusion of liberation.
That many discontented and innovative people were thus seduced into
submission and conformity (visible only to others) indicates the depth of
people's susceptibility to authoritarian control.
Gurus and Sexual Manipulation: the betrayal of trust
Having sex with one's disciples whether secretly or openly is a real
betrayal of trust because:
1. The Guru is putting his own needs and pleasures first, which is
exploitation. "Honoring" a disciple with sex is a form of unabashed
dominance--how can a disciple refuse who is committed to obey?
2. Rewarding women for their sexuality taps into and reinforces deep lines
of conditioning. Traditionally, women's power has been related to
sex...Gurus, like fathers, are in a context that gives them enormous power
because of their disciples' needs, trust and dependency. One reason incest
is a betrayal is what a daughter needs from her father is a sense of self-
worth not specifically linked to her sexuality. Sex with a guru is
similarly incestuous...having sex with a parental figure reinforces using
sex for power.
3...
The thoughts in this book could always be written off as unspiritual,
egotistical, and coming form a lower level of understanding.
Blind surrender to an authority is an emotional indulgence and illusory
security the species can no longer afford.
