Sex, Lies and Guru Ploys: Insights from The Guru Papers
Table of contents
Introduction
One of the books some of us have found useful in analyzing and putting in perspective the pattern of behavior on the part of Castaneda and his concentric inner circles that has been coming into sharper focus in recent weeks is Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad’s The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power (1993). Excerpts from the book that help put Castaneda’s behavior in context with that of other “authoritarian” figures appear below. First, however, it might be helpful to review some of the aspects of Castaneda’s behavior that may be relevant to this analysis.
Summarizing the Features of a Cult that Apply to Castaneda and His Circle
In abstract terms, what we are dealing with is a man who held himself out as a teacher with a unique position and unique abilities: he claimed to be the last of an ancient lineage that supposedly held the secrets not only to traveling bodily into other worlds or dimensions, but which also offered the promise of a form of immortality–evading death by keeping one’s awareness intact. He claimed to have a unique “energetic configuration”—one that he and his colleagues purportedly had not seen in any of the thousands of people they had interacted with over the past few decades—that gave him special abilities and capacities as the “Nagual.” He also had an inner circle that included women who could supposedly corroborate many of his stories about his own mythic, ideal teacher, and who also characterized the current teacher as “egoless,” “empty,” “not a man anymore,” and “very much like don Juan was.”
Due to his unique position and abilities—which supposedly included being able to “see” others’ true natures and innermost secrets—this teacher was virtually unquestionable as an authority on the teachings he claimed to have received and the ways in which people needed to change and act in order to experience the phenomena his lineage had supposedly experienced. It was also suggested– to some degree in public workshops, but even more in small groups and by members of this teacher’s “inner circle”–that this teacher’s “special powers” included the ability to accelerate the development of similar abilities in his “students,” and that he could even “fix” various “energetic” problems, holes and obstacles, especially in women, through what would be described in other contexts as casual sex.
Because one of the prime directives of this supposed lineage was to “erase personal history,” the questioning or investigating of the bona fides and “facticity” of the accounts of this teacher and his closest colleagues was harshly criticized and condemned, even though this teacher himself told endless stories about what had supposedly happened to him and his colleagues at various points throughout their lives. And because “stalking”—acting certain roles designed to evoke particular reactions, or “assemblage point shifts,” in oneself and others—was supposedly a prized technique of this teacher’s lineage, it was simply an aspect of their “skill” that their interpersonal relations and activities were shrouded in layers of secrecy and false stories.
Because of this teacher’s unique position, abilities and “lack of ego,” it was also not “abuse” when he regularly attacked, publicly humiliated, falsely accused or initiated the “shunning” of his “disciples” and colleagues. On the contrary, all such behaviors were passed off as examples of the teacher’s selfless and “impeccable” teaching techniques.
Guru and Cult as Functional Terms
I guess that’s enough of a review for the moment. Before turning to the excerpt, however, it is important to note that the term “guru” is used in the book solely in a functional sense, i.e., as someone who has attained some special ability or level of awareness that he holds himself out as being capable of being able to generate in others and on which he is the sole or primary authority. Likewise, the term “cult” is used in the book “in a specific way to refer to groups with an authoritarian structure where the leader’s power is not constrained by scripture, tradition, or any other ‘higher’ authority.” P. 32.
Cults vs. Religions
The authors distinguish between “cults” and “religions” as follows: “Probably all religions with an individual founder started as cults, becoming organized religions when, through widespread acceptance, the structure itself and its symbols became more important than the individual leaders who succeeded the founder. Cults become religions whenever they build up traditions, a body of myths, parables, scriptures, and dogmas that are interpreted and protected by specialists (priests, etc.) who see themselves as the guardians of the truth, not the bringers of it.” Id. In a cult, by contrast, “absolute authority lies in a leader who has few if any external constraints. This means the leader (who is usually the founder) is not merely the interpreter but is also the creator of truth, and thus has free rein in what he proposes.” P. 33.
Personal Masks Excerpt
The following excerpts are taken from Part 1 of the analytical portion of the book, entitled “Personal Masks”:
“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. As social animals, many of our strongest feelings come from group alignment. Cults offer a powerful matrix that breaks through individual boundaries and amplifies energy. Often what grabs the person is not a specific leader or ideology, but rather the configuration of emotions that is part of the state of surrender itself. Gurus can arouse intense emotions as there is extraordinary passion in surrendering to what one perceives as a living God. . . . . Should the guru become paranoid, greedy, or merely bored, as many do, they can get their disciples to do most anything.
. . . . Most gurus present themselves as being beyond the foibles resulting from ego.” (Pp. 33-34.)
“Surrender to a guru, though a way of filling a spiritual vacuum, is also one of the most powerful forms of mental and emotional control on the planet today. Especially insidious are the images of superiority tied to the presumption of greater wisdom, moral purity, or an enlightened state. Whether or not there is any reality behind these projections can be endlessly debated. The issue for us is not who has more wisdom or insight, but rather how this presumed wisdom is used. Asserting that one human being fundamentally knows what’s best for another is authoritarian. If this is accepted, it sets up a chain of inevitable relational patterns that are detrimental to all players of the game.
. . . . We do not question the need for people to connect with something more profound than their own personal dramas. We do question the viability of religions that present this world as a stepping stone to some other more important realm. Once this occurs, it is inevitable that religious experts delineate how to reach this other realm, and what must be sacrificed in this world to do so. This always includes renouncing self-centeredness—an endless task.
. . . .
Because the power of traditional religions comes from furnishing unchallengeable answers about the unknown, they are inherently authoritarian. Religions deflect examination by ordaining faith and belief to be sacred, while maintaining that no ordinary person can know enough to take issue with the beliefs they put forth. A further hindrance to the intelligent examination of religious tradition is the social taboo against doing so.” (pp. 36-37.)
“The need to appear right when presenting oneself as a spiritual knower is greater than in any other arena because knowing is what makes one essentially different from seekers. Admitting any fallibility not only removes one from that exalted place, but makes it difficult to compete with other presumed knowers who do claim infallibility. Part of being a knower is knowing that seekers are searching for certainty, and that if you don’t offer it someone else will.
. . . .
. . . .In the traditional guru/disciple structure, disciples are expected to surrender their will to the guru. This is presented as necessary for the guru to lead the disciple to realizations that can only be achieved by giving up the mundane attachments previously accumulated. This, of course, includes material attachments; but more importantly, surrender is presented as the means of letting go of the more deep-seated psychological attachments, which include the very structure of personality and identity (what is called ego).
As surrender to a guru is an integral part of being a disciple, this offers a paradigm for examining the needs surrender fills, the emotions it generates, and why it appears to offer quick access to change. In our view, deciphering the mechanism of surrender can only be done by viewing it in tandem with control.” (pp. 47-48.)
“Surrender is one of the most powerful forces and emotional states that a human being can touch into. Passion literally means abandonment, letting go; thus surrender is a way to passion. It is possible to surrender to many aspects of life: a person, an ideal, one’s art, a religion, a political system, the revolution, and even the living moment. Surrender is so potent precisely because it shifts control to an arena that is free, or more free, from one’s inner dramas and the conflicts involved in personal decisions. If I surrender my heart to you, then being with you becomes central in my life. . . . . Surrender is a basic part of life, as is control. What is being examined and taken issue with is surrender as part of authoritarian control.
In the East a guru is more than a teacher. He is a doorway that supposedly allows one to enter into a more profound relationship with the spiritual. A necessary step becomes acknowledging the guru’s specialness and mastery over that which one wishes to attain. The message is that to be a really serious student, spiritual realization must be the primary concern. Therefore one’s relationship with the guru must, in time, become one’s primary emotional bond, with all others viewed as secondary. In fact, typically other relationships are pejoratively referred to as ‘attachments.’ Once the primary bond with the guru is established, a powerful configuration of factors comes into play.
The ostensible reason for fostering surrender is it detaches followers from certain deep conditionings presumed to be obstacles on the spiritual path. But it does not detach them from one of the most insidious and powerful conditionings of all—the predilection to look for an authority that one can trust more than oneself. On the contrary, gurus happily leave intact that basic conditioning. To be someone’s authority is to be firmly implanted at the very center of their being. So although most gurus preach detachment, disciples become attached to having the guru as their center, whereas the guru becomes attached to the power of being others’ center. These reciprocal attachments are ignored because attachment to the guru is considered spiritual; and the guru, who is presumed enlightened, is by definition supposed to be beyond attachments.” (pp. 49-50.)
[The authors then proceed to list some of the types of scandals that tend to arise under these circumstances: (1) sexual abuse, (2) material abuse, (3) the abuse of power and (4) self-abuse. Under the category of sexual abuse, they note “the deceit that is seemingly innocuous to some people, involving a pretense of celibacy or monogamy while having clandestine sexual activity.” Under the category of “self-abuse,” they note the common contradiction that, although the message is that “the body is the temple of spirit and must be so treated; a healthy body is the result of a healthy mind and spirit; tranquility, compassion, and emotional control are signs of arrival”—”many leaders display the opposite: drunkenness, obesity, vindictiveness, rages, and physical ailments that in others would be called psychosomatic, such as allergies, ulcers, or high blood pressure. In fact, a close examination of the history, past and present of many religious leaders shows a high incidence of what might be termed self-destructive indicators.” P. 51.]
“When abuses are publicly exposed the leader either denies or justifies the behaviors by saying that ‘enemies of the truth’ or ‘the forces of evil’ are trying to subvert his true message. Core members of the group have a huge vested interest in believing him, as their identity is wrapped up in believing in his righteousness. Those who begin to doubt him at first become confused and depressed, and later feel betrayed and angry. The ways people deny and justify are similar: Since supposedly no one who is not enlightened can truly understand the motives of one who is, any criticism can be discounted as a limited perspective. Also, any behavior on the part of the guru, no matter how base, can be imputed to be some secret teaching or message that needs deciphering.
By holding gurus as perfect and thus beyond ordinary explanations, their presumed specialness can be used to justify anything. Some deeper, occult reason can always be ascribed to anything a guru does . . . . He punishes those who disobey him not out of anger but out of necessity, as a good father would. He uses sex to teach about energy and detachment. . . . . For after all, ‘Once enlightened, one can do anything.’ Believing this dictum makes any action justifiable.
People justify and rationalize in gurus what in others would be considered unacceptable because they have a huge emotional investment in believing their guru is both pure and right. Why? Why do people need images of perfection and omniscience? This goes back to the whole guru/disciple relationship being predicated on surrender. Surrender of great magnitude requires correspondingly great images of perfection. It would be difficult to surrender to one whose motives were not thought to be pure, which has come to mean untainted by self-centeredness. How can one surrender to a person who might put his self-interest first? Also, it is difficult to surrender to someone who can make mistakes, especially mistakes that could have a significant impact on one’s life. Consequently, the guru can never be wrong, make mistakes, be self-centered, or lose emotional control. He doesn’t get angry, he ‘uses’ anger to teach.” Pp. 52-53.
. . . . Surrender to Christ and to a guru have similar dynamics, as they both bring about feelings of passion, a sense of purpose, and the immediate reduction of conflict and tension. It is difficult for disciples to avoid the trap of using their new-found good feelings and relatively peaceful emotional state as verification that the guru and his worldview are essentially correct. As many do, they use ‘feeling better’ as their litmus test for truth.
The power of Eastern religions and the gurus that represent them is that they offer a living Christ-like figure to worship [e.g., “don Juan”], and also hold out the promise that anyone who does the proper practices could conceivably reach that high state, too.” P. 54.
Guru Ploys Excerpt
The next excerpts are from an enlightening chapter entitled, “Guru Ploys”:
“A guru, to be a guru, must know how to move people into a psychological state of surrender and keep them there. Gurus know that those who show any interest in them rarely do so out of mere curiosity, but want something they are lacking. What many people crave these days is a sense of connection or union with something they consider sufficiently profound to give their lives meaning. The very act of surrender initially brings this about.
Inducing Surrender
Psychological authoritarianism is based on manipulating desire and fear. Hence the motivational techniques utilized to induce and perpetuate surrender are the usual promises of rewards (worldly or otherworldly) and threats of punishments. Getting people to surrender leans more heavily on the reward side [e.g., immortality, or traveling in infinity with a band of powerful sorcerers], while keeping them there depends more on emphasizing the dire results of leaving the guru [e.g., “I’m her only chance,” and “it’s one minute to midnight”].
[The authors then note that these control techniques are sometimes unconscious on the part of the guru, especially if they themselves were trained in a tradition and are simply “repeating what they were taught and what was done with them by their own guru.”]
. . . . Aside from the more tangible rewards, they reinforce devotion with attention and approval, and punish its lack by withdrawing them. Though some gurus say that doubts are healthy, they subtly punish them. Doubt is not the way to get into the inner circle.” . . . .
In the initial seduction phase, the potential disciple becomes the focus of the guru’s or group’s attention and is made to feel very important. Then enticements are dangled in the form of testimonials, promises of extraordinary experiences, and offers of unqualified friendship and care—heady stuff. A convincing persuasion is that devotees not only claim to feel so much better now than before, but to those who have known them previously, they do in fact appear happier. Once an initial commitment has been made, techniques geared at disorientation come into play. This is done through undermining both self-trust and one’s previous attachments and support systems. Critical thought and relying upon previous experience are made to appear the source of one’s past or current problems. One spiritual leader claims to be the real parent, while labeling the biological parents the ‘devil parents.’
The most enticing message to induce surrender is that only in this way can one achieve true spiritual advancement [e.g., “the only way to hear us properly and to make the needed personal changes is by ‘suspending judgment.’”].
. . . .
At some point, disciplines or techniques are given that have a specified goal and predicted end result. For example, people are told that through meditating in a specified way they will eventually experience blue lights or see the guru’s face, or some other internal occurrence. What the promise is matters little because the mind can eventually construct any image it focuses upon. One is also told that regular practice will eventually bring higher states of consciousness and possibly even enlightenment, though this can take years or lifetimes.
Once a disciple has had the predicted experience, the guru and group reinforce belief in its importance. The first mini-experience (say of blue lights) is presented as a significant step on the spiritual path. Having a mini-experience gives hope that grander ones will eventually occur. The experiences derived from the practices are then used as verification of both the guru’s power and the truth of his worldview. But all this actually proves is that these experiences can be mechanically induced through mental techniques, and thus are predictable. People are often further conditioned to look at the guru as the fount or source of their newfound positive feelings.” Pp. 61-64.
“[S]urrendering to any leader or ideology can bring powerful feelings and an instant new identity. The feeling of renewal often includes believing that one has wiped one’s moral slate clean. The power of conversion experiences lies in the psychological shift from confusion to certainty. The new beliefs become essential to hold and defend lest all the good feelings that come from certainty vanish.” P. 65.
“After the newness of conversion wears off, some doubt may return. To maintain allegiance, a support system that reinforces people’s new identity is crucial. Power within the group is gained by deepening surrender to the guru, and members reward each other for making the group the priority. Deepening surrender does feel like letting go of ego and is defined by the guru as spiritual progress. Secrecy and arousing desire are important parts of the seduction. The guru dangles carrots of esoteric knowledge that he will transmit when he deems the disciple ‘ready.’ Waiting for each new piece of hidden knowledge not only keep devotees around, but receiving pieces of it (one never gets it all) confirms their worthiness and specialness. Now they, too, have knowledge that others do not.” [My Sunday group colleagues and I, I think, can confirm the truth of this paragraph.]
“Any conflict disciples have about submitting to the guru’s authority is defined perjoratively as resistance to a higher truth, the intrusion of ego, or a sign of unwillingness to give up attachments. Since surrender initially alleviates conflict and brings extremely good feelings, it is a powerful form of conditioning. If people end up feeling good and more open, they mistakenly conclude that whatever promoted it must also be true and good. Thus ‘feeling good’ and opening boundaries are erroneously equated with truth. Conversely, anything that contradicts the guru’s point of view is labeled ‘negativity’; so information that runs counter to accepted beliefs is repressed and punished. This ploy conveniently prevents negative feelings from being used as feedback that something might be amiss.
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. They ridicule or try to confuse people who ask challenging questions. Throwing the question back at the questioner is a common, easy-to-use ploy. This is done by attempting to show how the question displays some lack in the questioner. . . . .
Another ploy is calling whatever seems to be problematic a ‘test of faith.’ As these tests become more extreme, the release that passing the test brings is also more intense. This is why it is possible for the leader to get his increasingly bizarre behaviors accepted. Anything can be looked upon as a test of faith. Once reason has been undermined, there’s no way logically to refute this system—that’s why people who are ordinarily considered highly intelligent can become involved in believing, doing, and justifying just about anything.
. . . . Still another ploy is parceling out, or taking away, power over others in the group.
Mysterious or supernatural powers have always been used to validate religious authorities. Even today many people operate under a basic assumption that the ability to perform some act that defies ordinary explanation means the person who does this has an inside track to truth, or ‘higher’ truth. . . . .
Special powers people are reputed to have include healing, transmitting energy that gives others special experiences, and feats of magic such as materializing objects. . . . . With such phenomena, the usual concerns involve what’s really going on. Are these powers magical, or some kind of ESP, or chicanery that depends on people’s gulliblity and readiness to believe? Is the source of energy transmissions in the guru, or within a relational matrix where the receivers have a particular openness to receive? Is experiencing intense energy a sign of spirituality, or is the experience in the same vein as young ladies who swoon in the presence of rock stars? And then there is the question of whether special traits are necessarily an indication of special wisdom.
Our interest is not so much in explanations of the nature of these phenomena, but in how they are used by those who claim to do them. The reality and source of magical events can be endlessly debated. What can be easily seen, however, is whether they are being used to gain dominance, bolster credibility in other areas, make people worshipful, and create a context where the ‘miracle worker’ becomes an unchallengeable authority. When magic lies at the base of authority, no matter how elevated the people appear, they are engaged in perhaps the oldest ploy of authoritarian mind control.
Whenever powers are utilized as credentials to disarm reason and make people blind followers, there is little wisdom there. The idea that wisdom is justified by magical ability is even questioned within traditional Eastern thought. Trying to cultivate or being enthralled with special powers is considered one of the great dangers of the spiritual path. The major use of the miraculous has been to impress. For us the real mystery is why people display their purported powers in so many irrelevant or even trivial ways. . . . . Bottom line, those who use anything seemingly out of the ordinary to get others to bow down to them should be held suspect.
The guru’s specialness is presented as the result of many lifetimes of purification. So it is tacitly implied that one’s advancement can never approach the guru’s exalted state—at least not in this lifetime. It is far easier to surrender to a projection of perfection than to someone who is essentially like you. Thus gurus routinely take on images that people have been conditioned to associate with divinity: all-wise, all-good, all-powerful, or some approximation thereof. They all claim to be able to lead people to salvation, enlightenment, bliss, self-knowledge, immortality, peace, an end to sorrow, and ultimately being one with God. These states are conveniently as difficult to reach as they are compelling. Gurus also claim to bestow unconditional love [or at least “sorcerer’s affection”] on those who surrender to them, while actually whatever emotional connection exists is conditional on surrender and obedience. They cultivate images that cater to the disciples’ preconceived ideas of spirituality as selfless purity. In short, gurus basically tell disciples what they want to hear, including how special and wise they are for surrendering to them.
The 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 judgment of others. From here gurus can rationalize any contradictory behavior. The traditional idea that once enlightened, one can do anything is also attractive to disciples who secretly hope this is where their sacrifices will eventually lead them.”
. . . .
To be thought enlightened, one must appear not only certain that one is, but certain about most everything else, too. Certainty in areas where others are uncertain and have strong desires automatically sets up the guru’s dominance. . . . . In addition, to get followers what is needed is a message promising desires will be realized, and facility in handling people’s challenges and confusions. . . . . Problems arising from individuated life can be made to appear trivial, and a sign that the questioner has serious ‘ego problems.’ Deflecting everything back to others’ lacks is a simple, age-old ploy of anyone in a position of unchallengeability.
Another related ploy is placing high value on detachment . . . . The message is ‘You can’t become enlightened if you’re stuck on the material plane with attachments.’ To be attached is presented as being ego-bound. Preaching renunciation and self-sacrifice is by definition authoritarian—it means an authority telling you what you’re supposed to renounce. If a person buys this ideology, then detaching from possessions, relationships, and even one’s identity can at first make one feel better because they are the usual sources of pyschological pain.
Taking on beliefs because they alleviate conflict is part of the unconscious code underlying authoritarian control.” Pp. 66-71.
©️ 1999 by Richard Jennings or other author, as indicated, all rights reserved
Related Links:
