Data On Spiritual Teachers "efficiency"

[Cudin]

First of all, I know that this is a really hard question, and that the teacher's followers awakenings are not teir direct responsability. But, do anyone know of some kind of concrete data about how many people a certain modern spiritual teacher have woken up? 

For instance, OSHO claimed that he had woken up 21 people by 1984 (which honestly, I think is not true). 

Gurdjieff's students have declared that his system didn't work at all in the end of their lives. 

Talking specifically about non-dual teachers, Ramana Maharshi seems to be the most succesfull teacher in history so far. Althought I am (this ego is) more aligned with the vishishtadvaita side of vedanta, or maybe integral spirituality of Sri Aurobindo / Ken Wilber, advaitins seem to be really good at waking up people for their true essence. 

Not taking into consideration the many monks, sadhus and other kinds of spiritual hermits, there seems to be a way to lead a "common life" and dedicate some practice and consciousness work. Does anyone know about any teacher that has some kind of concrete data about how many people have woke up helped by their teachings? (just pointing the main question, again) 

[I know this question might sound stupid by taking an absolute perspective, or maybe for someone that is well advanced in his/her spiritual path, but please, have some compassion for this curious ego  - oh, and sorry about my english, I'm Brazillian!] 

Thanks a lot! 

 

[ajasatya]

9 minutes ago, Cudin said:

I'm Brazillian!

it's not about the teachers, really. it's about our thirsts and willingness to experience Truth and embody It. if you truly want enlightenment, you'll find the right teachers at the right moments.

the way you ask, it feels like an attempt run away from self responsibility. it's like an attempt to put a competitive element where it's not even welcome.

would you be open for a long retreat experience? do you have the courage to face all of your mental trash?
these are way more interesting questions for us to ask ourselves.

[Prabhaker]

25 minutes ago, Cudin said:

Ramana Maharshi seems to be the most succesfull teacher in history so far

Buddha was the most successful teacher in the history so far, but modern men need catharsis which was not needed at Buddha's time.

[Cudin]

30 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

it's not about the teachers, really. it's about our thirsts and willingness to experience Truth and embody It. if you truly want enlightenment, you'll find the right teachers at the right moments.

the way you ask, it feels like an attempt run away from self responsibility. it's like an attempt to put a competitive element where it's not even welcome.

would you be open for a long retreat experience? do you have the courage to face all of your mental trash?
these are way more interesting questions for us to ask ourselves.

Tks brother!

Valeu irmão! 

Talking specifically about my personal journey, I am willing and do face my mental trash everytime I have the opportunity to do so. 

My curiosity is based on the prospects of the spreading the non-dual spiritual ideas, just as it is, an ideia (at least on the beggining) .  For instance, I've seen that there is a post here on the forum about the recent videos of Jim Carrey talking about non-dual concepts in a random interviews. Of course he knows he is doomed to be seen as insane for many. But maybe this act itself works for some people, creating awereness about "what the hell this crazy dude is talking about". 

Reccently I have discovered Jeffery Martins's reasearch about "non-symbolic persistent experience". The dude has a course which he claims to have developed a kind o method that had over 75% success rate on liberating people, based on extensive research and direct interviews with enlightened people. (You can be skepical as you want about it, no judgements). But if this happens to be true, this sort of "demystifying of mysticism" should be spread to all seekers. 

I might sound silly talking about this sort of spiritual politics, but it seems to me to be a really important point for us, spiritual seekers

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Cudin

[Cudin]

@Prabhaker totally agree. Maybe it would sound better as "the most succesfull teacher in modern history"

Edited September 18, 2017 by Cudin

[Toby]

3 hours ago, Cudin said:

For instance, OSHO claimed that he had woken up 21 people by 1984 (which honestly, I think is not true).

21 is too low imo. Probably there are teachers today where hundreds of people got awakened with.

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Cudin said:

Reccently I have discovered Jeffery Martins's reasearch about "non-symbolic persistent experience". The dude has a course which he claims to have developed a kind o method that had over 75% success rate on liberating people, based on extensive research and direct interviews with enlightened people. (You can be skepical as you want about it, no judgements). But if this happens to be true, this sort of "demystifying of mysticism" should be spread to all seekers.

A) Jeffery Martin's method/course doesn't promise 75% success rate at liberation. It promises 75% chance of at least one nondual experience within 6 months of practice. That is a FAR cry from liberation. Make sure you're reading the fine print. Yeah, if you do 2 hours of daily concentration and meditation practice very rigorously, you'll probably have a 75% of getting a glimpse. Don't expect it to be a deep glimpse.

I can promise you a 99% chance of a nondual experience within 10 minutes of taking 5-MeO, or 60 minutes of taking mushrooms. But that's a far cry from liberation. Not even close.

B) The problem is you cannot demystify mysticism, because reality is fundamentally mystical. The attempt to demystify it is grounded in ego. The ego holds biases against acknowledging the deeply mystical nature of reality. That's not a problem for spiritual teachers to fix, that's a delusion for you to overcome in your awakening process. The mind thinks it knows where enlightenment will lead, but it has no idea. You're trying to correct a  process you haven't gone through yet, based on false assumptions which the process will eventually rob you of.

Egos have been reinventing the spiritual process for thousands of years, trying to make it more mainstream and adapted to the historical era in which the ego resides. Nothing new about that. This is the history of all religions. Making enlightenment "scientific" is no different than what any other religion does. Because you cannot ever symbolize enlightenment. So every teaching cannot be better than a metaphor.

Looking for shortcuts tends not to work. Because if it did, most people would be enlightened. But they aren't. Because the ego will corrupt the process, no matter how short it is. The problem of enlightenment isn't with lack of a straight-forward process. It's with lack of willingness. Which is something no process can fix for you. If you really wanted it, you could go become enlightened in a few months. But you don't want that. It's too much for the ego to swallow.

C) You're not going to find good statistics on enlightenment because it's so rare, hard to quantify, and personal. Just to make sense of the statistical data, you'd already have to be deeply enlightened. Maybe 500 years from now, we'll have such data, but not in your lifetime, so don't waste too much time worrying about it.

[Socrates]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you really wanted it, you could go become enlightened in a few months

How?

It is the cave method, isn't it?

[Joseph Maynor]

Enlightenment is difficult because you need a lot of theory and then you need to know when to throw it all away, and you can't know how and when to do this in advance.  I'd be skeptical that anyone could be deeply enlightened with under 1 year of intense study and practice.  You need some curing like a good steak, and that takes time.  Nobody eats a steak cut straight off the carcass.  The meat needs careful curing first, which takes attention, time, and care.  Enlightenment is like a little budding plant that has to be tended to and nurtured.  Maybe after a couple of years you'll have yourself a little tree.  But there are no guarantees.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Shin]

20 minutes ago, Socrates said:

How?

It is the cave method, isn't it?

The cave method is still a process your mind thinks it needs  

[Samuel Garcia]

@Cudin There's a Korean cult which claims  over 5000 people reached ''completion'' or awoke last year using ''Maum Meditation''. Definitely dodgy though.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Samuel Garcia

[Nahm]

@Cudin wondering if you drew that avatar pic. I like it a lot. I feel like it captured something not so obvious. Nice.   My two cents is it takes a very long time and a lot of practices, and paradoxically, if you were to commit to the most absolute honesty, you could enlighten yourself as a product of rejecting all else (beliefs). Your consciousness is already beyond any earthly enlightenment, but your body, brain, & personality have all this shit they prefer, want, "need", etc. They come up with some pretty convincing stories. Good luck! You're in the right place imo.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

How?

It is the cave method, isn't it?

If you just sit and focus on observing "What is aware of this present experience?" for 16 hours per day for 100 days straight, you're almost guaranteed to get enlightened. Doesn't have to be in a cave.

The trick is that no one wants to actually do it. It's the hardest thing in the world to do.

But still, plenty of people have done it.

[zenjen]

In the end, you will figure out you are your own teacher. The master of your reality, for better or worse. I wouldn't say anyone else is directly responsible for waking someone else up. It is a combination of life experiences that will wake someone up. Everyone is on their own time to do so. That's why you keep it a secret, keep trying to plant seeds, and simply keep living your own reality. They will get there when they are ready and only then, and it won't be the direct cause of any teacher.

[Seeker_of_truth]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, if you do 2 hours of daily concentration and meditation practice very rigorously, you'll probably have a 75% of getting a glimpse. Don't expect it to be a deep glimpse.

FUCK !!!! 2hrs of rigorous concentration and meditation and still it doesn't suffice !!! If you are able to maintain perfect concentration for 2 hours how can it be not enough to know the self ? Wtf is needed other than concentration ? Time ???

 

[Real Eyes]

The importance of the guru is the number one mystery I would like solved in spirituality.  Being a westerner, I would much prefer if gurus were completely unnecessary, and that it is possible to reach the highest heights with nothing but your own effort. 

On the other hand, we have quite a few mystics that say the guru is absolutely indispensable in the process of attaining the highest realization. 

Note, it is very clear you can attain some level of enlightenment on your own.  That is not a mystery.  The question is, are these people attaining the same heights as the Buddha (to use a generic example) with their unaided efforts? 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Real Eyes

[Nahm]

@Real Eyes the guru convinces you, with their being, not to effort. 

[Real Eyes]

35 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Real Eyes the guru convinces you, with their being, not to effort. 

Well  the word "effort" is not of much importance, you can remove that word and my question still stands.  

Can the highest realization be had without the "magic touch" of some guru?  Seems like a silly question to Westerners, and it's not a question I would consider, if not for the long history of mystics in a variety of traditions saying it is true.  And I'm not talking about Eckhart Tolle or somebody like that when I say "guru".  I mean an actual guru-disciple relationship, not just somebody that points you to a deeper reality. 

For example, people these days love to quote Rumi, but it is not very well known that Rumi states in his works clearly that the role of the teacher is essential.  Not just "helpful."

 All the Sufi orders I am aware of say the same thing regarding a teacher, as well as the entire Sant tradition of North India. There is constant harping on the need of a guru.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Real Eyes

[Nahm]

@Real Eyes If I'm seeking being, my connotation of effort is of great importance. Good luck with finding a Guru. ❤️ I bet they come right out of the woodwork, if you look hard enough. ?

[Real Eyes]

9 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Real Eyes If I'm seeking being, my connotation of effort is of great importance. Good luck with finding a Guru. ❤️ I bet they come right out of the woodwork, if you look hard enough. ?

I agree that the connotations of effort are important in general.  What I'm saying though, is that it has nothing to do with my question, which is "Is a guru required?"   Delete the word "effort" from my first post and the question remains unchanged.  

Also please note that I've not made any claims here.  I presented the question and the reasoning behind it, but I don't have an opinion either way yet.