In connection to Magical Teachers

I received some interesting questions from Sayan who took the time to write in his comments for the post "Magical Teachers Through the Centuries". There seems to be some general confusion regarding my post on 'Magical teachers...' While answering Sayan's questions, I went into long explanations - and I think the questions and the comments may as well be another blog-post.
Dear Sayan,
First off, I’ll thank you for taking the time to post such a carefully thought out comment.
I’ll answer your questions as best as I can. And I will say at the onset that this is how I ‘see’ it; this is what I have learned through time and space: given that I’m looking at the world with the lenses that I wear – and my lenses make me see the world in a particular way (the notion of the ‘lenses shape the world that we see’ is from Steven Covey).

In addtion: One point I should clear out is that my focus ultimately was not so much on Teachers and Students as isolated islands but on the interactive and circular nature of certain Teacher-Student relationships. By "Interactive" and "circular" I essentially mean that love, trust, respect, admiration, and much more and beyond are mutual sentiments, experienced by both the Teacher and The Student for each other in these relationships, and these sentiments cannot be categorized by the label of "how much" and "who respects/loves the other more". Thus my focus was on these relationships that are created, these bonds that are co-established, these connections/this communion that is shared - sometimes inarticulate, sometimes inexpressible, and sometimes voiced, but always unique, and inordinately precious between certain "Magical" Teachers and some "Mystical" Students through the centuries.
Having said that, I’ll take up your comments point by point.

1. “This absolute trust for a teacher that you are talking about - does it imply blind trust?”

I am very wary of using the term ‘blind’ trust; although I will call it an ‘intuitive trust’. I do not believe in completely discounting my own experiences and my own lessons – no matter what. I take what comes from a teacher (any teacher) –and I take in the teachings from teachers I respect, love, and trust – with both more and less resistance. I know that sounds contradictory – but that’s the way I work. I swallow a lot of my pride and let my ego rest a bit but at the same time there is an increase in my stubbornness. While I don’t completely discount and throw away ‘my’ own experiences – I still pay and keep on paying close attention to what is coming from My Teacher, and keep weighing out the scales.
In this context I will say that personally, I have in rare encounters experienced Absolute Trust. The funny thing is that I have noticed that Absolute Trust too has qualitatively different textures to it. But about this - some other day. But yes, I have experienced absolute trust, which comes from somewhere very deep inside.

2. “…it seems to me that it ultimately boils down to the honesty of the teacher and the student towards themselves first and then towards each other. But are there not instances when two highly knowledgeable and honest people look at the same thing and see it differently?”

a. It’s not about ‘knowledge’ and honesty alone – although these are definitely important. Knowledge could refer to book-knowledge; it could refer to ‘how much’ an individual knows, it could refer to how much ‘information’ an individual can remember over the years, it can also refer to the interconnections made through one’s readings and experiences.

b. But there are other extremely essential components, which to me are those of wisdom, consciousness, sensitivity, spirituality, and awareness. All these are not identical although interrelated terms, and these terms mean something specific to me. The way for me to sense these in a teacher (or in anyone for that matter) is not through my analytical and logical skills (although these help in certain specific situations) – but come to me in an intuitive flash. I know; I sense, and I feel these although I may not have any ‘rational proof’ of the same in the first instant.
Once again a) and b) are most definitely inter-related – at least for me. Both a) and b) in a teacher brings about balance in my mind.

3. “For instance many great people have been known to be unbalanced and whimsical, sometimes to the point of being destructive and yet, it must be agreed that there is a very close connection between their unbalanced ways and their creative genius.”

I happen to have read (and still read) a fair bit on the interconnections between creativity and genius, and had been extremely intrigued about these interconnections for the longest time. (The substantive area of “Creativity/Genius and what is currently known as ‘Bi-polar’ disorder” made up for awhile my main readings for my Masters). While it is a humongous area to wade through in some ways, and there are seeming contradictions and paradoxes in the understanding of the issue, I can (in brief) for the time being present my understanding of it.

My understanding is that while the ‘whimsical and unbalanced’ geniuses did indeed create fine works of art, and MAY indeed not have produced these had they not been thus; I would say that there is still the higher probability not to mention possibility that had they been able to ‘stabilise’ themselves and ‘balance’ themselves, and ‘integrate’ themselves – they would have lived longer for one thing, (instead of killing themselves or simply dying young through repeated fits of frenzy), and they would’ve kept producing fine pieces.

Also, if you dig a little deeper you will find that the most ‘productive’ geniuses were the ones that were ‘stable’ and ‘balanced’ and ‘integrated’. I can cite the standing example of Tagore. This does not mean that he did not experience enormous highs and lows, nor does it mean that he lacked sensitivity or fineness – it simply means that he did not destruct other lives around him nor did he self-explode in a massive fit of destruction.

Yet another fine example is that of St. Francis of Assisi, who as the ‘story’ goes, had fantastic visions and was hearing the Voice of God. Finally came a day when he was running down the roads stark naked, yelling and bellowing “we must build a church on the end of this road. God told me to…!” He was pelted with stones and driven away.
He left for the forest. Meditated. “Calmed himself down”. Regained/reconnected to his Sense of Balance. Reached “Enlightenment” (or call it what-you-will). He left the forest after re-integrating with His Self, His Spirit, His God, and the rest of course is History.

So personally I have come to the firm conclusion that there is nothing good in being ‘wayward and unbalanced’ (being whimsical in moderate doses is actually fine, at least in my book). Yes, possibly the merit of ‘creative genius’ might do a bit to dampen the pain and the agony that these individuals go through. Yet channelized creative passion is the only form that really ‘works in the long run’.

Also, it needs to be understood that even Van Gogh - emotionally and mentally unbalanced as he was, was certainly not "unbalanced" when he was painting. So one thing is clear: Unbalanced as one may be - in order to DO anything 'well' or in order to be "outstanding" one must be FIRMLY balanced while engaged in that creative act (be that painting, composing, sculpting, what-have-you).

Also, my additional tuppence thoughts on this is that most scholars and practioners (with very few exceptions) who have brought our attention to the interconnections among The (Un)Holy Trinity of "Creativity, Genius and Madness" have not made a clear and important distinction between balance and repression. And THIS according to me has been the problem in our comprehension of the "Mad Artist". The "Mad Artist" too can lead a perfectly balanced, creative, passionate, and fulfilling life. The key is to not "repress" the "Mad Artist" but to lead him/her to a state where s/he can engage in a balanced but no less creative state of being and doing. This is of course a topic, about which much much more can be said, but my ‘relatively' short answer would be the above.

4. “Hence in situations where the student realizes that the teacher, with all his knowledge, honesty and wisdom is strait jacketing him on a front, which he (the student) associates with his very survival; what path must he follow then?”

Ha!Ha!Ha! The student must follow The Path of HIS/HER CHOICE. Where is the dilemma here? But remember there are other aspects apart from knowledge, honesty, and wisdom. Also there is the art and science of balance. But certainly – all said and done it is the student who makes certain choices (if not all of them!). As has been said – even the greatest teachers can only point to The Path(s). The rest is upto the student/disciple.

5. “Lastly, they say that the task of a teacher is to help his student look at things with clarity, cognition and equanimity and learn to trust himself- rather that inner voice within.”
First off ‘cognition’ itself means either ‘the process of knowing’ or the ‘end product of knowing’. So I’d say that a teacher helps his/her students cognize with clarity and equanimity, among other things, and I will say a resounding ‘yes’ in relation to ‘trusting and listening to the Inner Voice.’

6. “But when a student reaches that state he doesn’t need the teacher anymore. Now, when both the teacher and the student have elevated themselves to both moral and intellectual profoundness; is it possible that their ideals won’t match, even be sometimes exactly opposite?”

Insofar as ‘need’ is concerned: possibly, possibly not. This really and fully depends upon how one understands and what one means by the word ‘need’.
I, for one will. As I understand ‘need’. Yet I cannot make generalizations from my own perspective. But true enough – the form and the content of that need changes through any meaningful ‘teacher-student’ interaction.
As for your last question: I can’t give you a pat answer. That is, once again – I can forward my own views and in connection to what I’ve seen around me – but I cannot say ‘yes, of course’, or ‘no, of course not.’
But I will once again stress that ‘intellect’ or even ‘basic goodness’ alone are not what are of absolute importance to me. Intellect at least as I see it – is much too bound and constricted. Even basic ‘good’ morality is not what makes for ‘profound’ spiritual experiences, unique lessons and crucial teachings. Therefore I would have to go back to my tenets of spirituality, awareness, consciousness, sensitivity, and wisdom – which lead to the fine and final balance.
Would Ramkrishna be seen as a man of ‘intellect’, for instance? You see, there is more to being a Teacher (at least the kinds that I am concerned about in my essay) than being ‘honest’ and intellectually gifted.
Thus, I would say that in ‘intellectual’ matters, students and teachers may certainly experience a complete rift. No doubt about that. Jung and Freud, for example had parted ways.

However, in the most profound sense – true teachers and disciples most likely will not be at complete loggerheads regarding the truly cardinal ‘ideals’ (whatever that be: whether it is the belief in Work, Life, and Love as being sacred or whether it be the belief in the Unity of Self or what-have-you).

7. “I couldn’t figure out who was right and who was wrong – it seemed to me that both were right in themselves. So in cases where right and wrong overlap and merge to become obscure (or seem to be so) what is the way out?”
This is a very interesting question (as were all your questions) because there are a couple of ways to answer it. I will answer it in immediate terms. In some ways I’ve already hinted to it. The personal lenses through which I view my world indeed do make a difference.
Not knowing though exactly what the ‘dispute’ between the fictional characters was – I can’t give you a very definite answer.
But no matter. I will still articulate a method that I have found useful in different ways and at different times.

In cases where ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ do seemingly merge – one has to ‘see’ the problem. And I can’t stress this enough. One must see it as hard and as long and as intensely as one is able to within one’s mind – if one is serious about getting to the bottom and the top of the answer that satisfies one’s Spirit/Soul/Self. Sometimes the answers may jolly well come across as contradictions or paradoxes. But once one gets beyond that – one is able to ‘see’ a little more clearly than before. The other point to remember is that not each and every ‘problem’ or dichotomy needs to be understood, and ‘seen’. The key is to look for abstractions alongwith specifics. The key is to be able to cluster and divide and then cluster up all the apparently related issues, which one is trying to understand or resolve.

There, I’ve reached the end of your question list. And no, I didn’t for one moment think that you were nit-picking or trying to pose as a ‘know-it-all’. I hope some of my points may be of some help.
Once again: Thank you for raising the questions that you have!
Take care.
Shilpidi