It feels important to emphasise that Ram Dass is not a guru by his own definition:
Unity of God, guru, and Self is the higher truth, and if your veil of attachment is very thin, you may be able, like Ramana, to penetrate directly to that essence in the heart.
But most of us, to get through our busy human incarnation and the profusion of forms we find in our lives, need guidance and help. Seeing the guru as separate from oneself is a way to approach it in steps of lesser truths. It’s a first step toward becoming the One. The reality of the guru or guide as separate from oneself is a method or vehicle for coming to God. It’s using a relationship with a separate entity, dualism, to get to the One, to the reality that the guru is identical with your inmost being.
However, of all the things Ram Dass has said and done, the mantra (from the article) is all we really need to remember:
“So I accomplish the move from head to heart, in part with mantra: I am loving awareness. I am loving awareness. I am loving awareness.” With each repetition of the mantra, Ram Dass slowly begins charting the daily process of moving his consciousness out of his thinking mind and toward his open, present, compassionate heart—from ego land to soul land.
“All the universe is love,” he continues. “And I'm loving all of the universe.… Everything—everything—has love in it.”
What does it actually mean to say that all the universe is love, and that everything has love in it? Is this more a way in which he is choosing to view things, or an actual statement of fact?
I think that the statement "all the universe is love" is the ultimate example of a "Darwinian Truth" (I hesitate to reference Jordan Peterson here, but it's another useful definition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Q2qgdYB3I). I believe that in order for us humans to survive and thrive in life, individually and collectively, it is a truth must ultimately be consciously acknowledged. After all, we each represent projections of maternal lineage founded on an unbroken chain of our mothers' unconditional love for us. This way of viewing things is therefore primary since it has been there since very the beginnings of individual awareness. The original fact.
As to exactly how you personally should interpret "all the universe is love", well, it's a very personal thing. Perhaps the most general way to convey how that feels to me is: extend your deep inner-child maternal love outwards to encompass the rest of humanity, the Earth's ecosystem, and the natural conditions that gave rise to life itself. Like the feeling of warm sunshine on a cold day.
From what I’ve read of Jordan Peterson, he seems like a reasonable guy on many topics, but I don’t agree with Darwinian Truth. The only truth is what I experience. Everything outside of that is a game of language, including Jordan Peterson’s and Harris’s arguments.
I don’t see how invoking Jordan Peterson’s ‘Darwinian Truth’ gives any weight to the claim that all the universe is love. I would agree that you could indeed hold it to be an axiom.
You might believe that it is beneficial for humans to hold this axiom to be true and act accordingly, but this is still your subjective opinion. It supposes that humans are a worthy universal end, and the axiom remains an axiom.
I don’t know what you mean by unbroken maternal lineage. My maternal experience was very much broken. From what my mother has told me, so was hers.
What is the extension of deep inner child maternal love to encompass the test of humanity? Is it not just another way of saying that you just wish that everything were hunky dory? Things don’t seem to work that way in Darwin’s world.
I don’t want to disregard the idea of unconditional love for family and beyond. Many people can afford it. However, many people can’t, and it isn’t a truth that we must strive towards either.
There is a multitude of subjective value systems which man has chosen to live by, ostensibly, collectively and in private. Some have chosen to build empires, never having children. Some have chosen to build loving families. In neither case is it guaranteed that a majority will wake up smiling and feeling happy every day. That’s fine too.
> I would agree that you could indeed hold it to be an axiom.
Challenge accepted, I will play your language game :)
> You might believe that it is beneficial for humans to hold this axiom to be true and act accordingly, but this is still your subjective opinion.
I live in quiet certainty that one day, eventually, everyone will be holding this same opinion and hold this axiom to be true. I do not necessarily expect to still be around to witness it personally.
By unbroken maternal lineage I am referring to the 9 months of sufficient love and nurturing required for a mother to produce a baby human, as has happened 100% consistently and successfully for millennia to arrive at each one of us. Any love received post-birth is a bonus. I accept that this view is harder to appreciate in some circumstances and is often obscured by many layers of trauma.
> Is it not just another way of saying that you just wish that everything were hunky dory?
I think to hold the perspective I'm describing you have to let go of seeing the problems in the world as problems. Things are simply happening. Suffering is happening. Life is unfolding. At some level I'm certainly still entertaining a wish that everything might yet work out to be hunky dory, but these days I can readily accept that such a wish will only ever be an illusion. I guess that is my second axiom.
You might enjoy briefly hearing Alan Watts tell The Story of the Chinese Farmer which beautifully expresses this general acceptance of life as it is currently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX0OARBqBp0
> Many people can afford it. However, many people can’t, and it isn’t a truth that we must strive towards
Many people might think they can't afford to love because life can grow intense and feel very serious sometimes, even dangerous, but love is free and it is always the best course of action. What else could each of us be striving towards if not a world with more love (even if only for ourselves)?
> In neither case is it guaranteed that a majority will wake up smiling and feeling happy every day. That’s fine too.
I agree, that's fine. Sadness is just as meaningful a feeling as happiness. These are just feelings.
I have always enjoyed listening to recordings of Ram Dass at various points during his life (much more than I've enjoyed his writings). I have issues with a lot of his beliefs at various points, but his compassion always shines through and I feel like he is being honest with his listeners about his experience of his spiritual journey, even if sometimes he is seeing things through muddy waters. He is imperfect, and searching, and he is very generous and genuine in sharing his experiences. I don't usually feel like I am getting grand truths from him, other than the insight into one seeker's subjective (and powerful) experiences.
I agree that the message is beautiful. I do have reservations however about gurus, in that the ones I'm aware of tend to live in isolated places where they are worshiped. I feel like it's easy to love and support others when you have peace, quiet, love and support in abundance around you. I'd like to see how these individuals operate in higher stress situations and if they've really perfected the art of love or if it's more a product of their circumstances.
All you need in order to be happy is to be treated like a minor demigod by all around you. Sounds legit.
My favourite example of this (albeit not one that's always been at peace) is the Dalai Lama. Dude goes around talking about love and acceptance and whatnot, which is great and he seems like a great guy, but his experience as someone with an international organisation dedicated to looking after him is maybe not 100% relevant to the life of some random pleb in a Western country.
Curious. Is it avoidable? If you’re trying to teach people to be better and happier through a spiritual context, and they feel they are better and happier, how do you avoid being seen as someone divinely inspired?
I don’t think the Dalai Lama is a great example. He doesn’t do it out of choice but out of duty. It’s what a Dalai Lama is expected to do. They are believed to be the reincarnation of an enlightened person who represents compassion. He’s also the head of the exiled Tibetan state, so he probably will have people looking after him whether he likes it or not.
Agreed. A lot of famous gurus are just very charismatic people that live a very nice life and don't really have to deal with the drudgeries of the life most regular people live. When you look under the cover a lot of them are abusive and really not nice people.
I think there are only very few people that are really spiritually enlightened and they are not necessarily the famous gurus.
I know nothing about Ram Dad's but when I was more involved in yoga I saw some very shady behavior of public gurus.
A good friend of mine went to India to sit with a guru. He made them meditate underneath a highway overpass in the “slums” for days on end. His message was basically meditation isn’t about putting on pretty music and sitting by a waterfall. Anyone can meditate at a 5 star resort spa. It’s when life hits you in the face that you need to be able to find inner peace, no matter what is going on around you.
I agree with you, but I don't necessarily see a conflict between someone "teaching" me (what a guru basically is: a teacher, in a way) and other facets of their personality.
I've had many teachers that were superb at imparting their lessons while living with the foibles and flaws of being real people. You take what you need from the teacher and move on.
An example in popular culture: someone like Bill Cosby, who I am sure influenced countless people to be better people. Well, it turned out that he had major problems (to put it mildly!). Does that negate the "lessons" that he imparted in another aspect of his life? I would argue no.
I know you aren't negating this argument in your post, but I just wanted to say this and chose your post to glom onto! :)
With self help, spiritual and health people I have decided only to listen to people who live their own teachings. I have seen famous yoga teachers talk about the benefits of yoga while popping large amounts of Ibuprofen daily because their practice injured them.
Same for some gurus who outwardly are serene and friendly people but their ashram is a dictatorship that terrorizes and manipulates people. There is also a lot of sexual abuse going on. Ram Dass himself did questionable things.
I think bad behavior negates the teachings or at least diminishes them by a lot. How am I supposed to know something works if it doesn't work for the teacher?
Unfortunately there are only a few authentic gurus and teachers.
“There is a false saying: “How can someone who can’t save himself save others?” Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?”
There’s a recorded conversation between Ram Dass and Terence McKenna during which Ram Dass says, “My life is my message,” and McKemma replies, “My message is my message, my life is a mess!”
That conversation is absolutely brilliant and, in combination with the Going Home documentary, is what got me probing deeper into Ram Dass' message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ih4Fg6P730
While that may be true, if it was the reading of this book that brought that peace of mind to him, why try to discredit his fondness of the book so dismissively? Everyone needs guidance from time to time, does it really matter where the guidance comes from?
I've always been conflicted by these gurus, so let me play devil's advocate and present some things I found when I researched Ram Dass / Neem Karoli Baba a while ago:
Some interesting tales by Ram Dass about how Neem Karoli read his mind, ingested ginormous amounts of LSD without any effect, etc; here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb2BWvRN090
The specific story about the Baba reading Ram Dass' mind and informing him that he was thinking about his mother and that she had died of spleen failure stayed with me. Maybe he was informed the previous night that a Professor from the US was arriving whose mother died recently of spleen failure and the rest was about creating an illusion of omniscience?
In any case, a large number of these gurus turn out to be sexual predators, and it is absolutely crushing to those who follow them to discover this.
UG "masturbation is better than meditation" Krishnamurti was a much needed respite from these masters of bullshit for me, personally.
I'd certainly advocate a high level of skepticism.
Even in the article Ram Dass is saying that he gave LSD to the Harvard undergraduate at least in part because he found him attractive. It makes me wonder what else happened in that encounter, but it's certainly a large abuse of power to have a professor giving undergraduate kids LSD.
I also think any discussion about these sorts of western gurus must also include dialogues about race, class, and privilege. If he could afford a Cessna, a Mercedes, a sailboat, and multiple apartments, it certainly was not from just a professor's salary. It's a whole lot easier to take a bunch of drugs then go practice asana and pranayama in India with the sort of safety net it sounded like he had.
Yeah, these guys give off slimy vibes, but I wonder if this term is a little harsh. Women associate willingly with these men, and ostensibly enjoy doing so. If all participants are willing, what is the difference between predation and normal human interaction? Is it not normal for women to be drawn to power and influence?
> The specific story about the Baba reading Ram Dass' mind and informing him that he was thinking about his mother and that she had died of spleen failure stayed with me. Maybe he was informed the previous night that a Professor from the US was arriving whose mother died recently of spleen failure and the rest was about creating an illusion of omniscience?
I recommend learning about cold reading.
(A major component of it isn't just that it's quite easy to talk information out of you with vague prompts, it's that after the fact you will tend to remember that information as having originated with the cold reader. For instance, if the cold-reader just says "You are thinking about someone very close to you" and you say, "I was thinking about my mother", you will later remember the cold reader saying you were thinking about your mother.)
Never heard of UGK before, but I just looked into him and he's quite the interesting fellow. Definitely agree with his views on the "quest" for enlightenment or the aggrandization of medidation/awakening. From what I can tell the actual content of his philosophy seems to consist of a mix of nihilism and determinism
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2516424/ is an interesting documentary about the complicated, ambivalent relationship between Alpert and Leary, made when Leary was dying. Leary, characteristically, turned his death into a spectacle, but I find Alpert the more interesting of the two.
I highly recommend How To Change Your Mind by Michael Pollan. He convincingly illustrates how detrimental to serious research were Leary and his penchant for the spectacular.
I wholeheartedly second the recommendation. I also want to point out that Pollan's treatment of Leary's influence is certainly more nuanced than that. Here's a key quote:
> When I asked Rick Doblin if he worries about another backlash, he pointed out that our culture has come a long way from the 1960s and has shown a remarkable ability to digest a great many of the cultural novelties first cooked up during that era.
“That was a very different time. People wouldn’t even talk about cancer or death then. Women were tranquilized to give birth; men weren’t allowed in the delivery room! Yoga and meditation were totally weird. Now mindfulness is mainstream and everyone does yoga, and there are birthing centers and hospices all over. We’ve integrated all these things into our culture. And now I think we’re ready to integrate psychedelics.”
Doblin points out that many of the people now in charge of our institutions are of a generation well acquainted with these molecules. This, he suggests, is the true legacy of Timothy Leary. It’s all well and good for today’s researchers to disdain his “antics” and blame him for derailing the first wave of research, and yet, as Doblin points out with a smile, “there would be no second wave if Leary hadn’t turned on a whole generation.” Indeed. Consider the case of Paul Summergrad, who has spoken publicly of his own youthful use of psychedelics. In a videotaped interview with Ram Dass that was shown at the 2015 meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, he told his colleagues that an acid trip he took in college had been formative in his intellectual development. (Jeffrey Lieberman, another past president of the American Psychiatric Association, has also written of the insights gleaned from his youthful experiments with LSD.)
Well, but Leary also turned into a convenient scapegoat a long time ago, and I'm not sure how fair that is. It was a wild time. He didn't create that.
Pollan's book comes at the fulcrum of the movement where a lot of people have been carefully, and strategically, working on rehabilitating psychedelics without spooking the state again. Leary as scapegoat fits into that perfectly. Maybe too perfectly?
Leary was brilliant and complex, more interesting than the caricatures, which he admittedly drew a lot of himself. And I would say tragic. I felt from the documentary that prison broke him. His daughter killed herself (also in jail) and his son publicly denounced him and refused to speak to him. The film didn't mention those things.
Pollan also gave credit to the fact that Leary did bring psychedelics into pop culture in a major way, which has had some detrimental effects on serious study, but near the end of the book also acknowledged that on the flipside, all that exposure means currently a lot more people may be interested in serious study than there might be otherwise. I do appreciate Pollan's earnest attempts at considering many sides of an issue.
That turning his death into a spectacle was something to witness. I remember going to various underground night clubs in the Los Angeles area around the time of his death, and he would be in the club, literally in a hospital bed. People would be doing a meet and greet type of procession line, where he'd share any drugs offered and was generally one of those "I can't believe it" head shaking moments, but repeated for months.
On a personal level I find detachment and neutrality to be helpful for reducing anxiety and stress, but on a societal level it sounds like a recipe for mass complacency in the face of oppression.
I had his Be Here Now book in University. I didn't know he had a podcast. I'll have to add it.
I had a friend I was tripping on acid with, back in grad school, and he picked up the Be Here Now book, read the intro and said, "Wait, did he seriously change his name to 'Rammed ass?!'" .. I've always wondered about his intent after that. :-P
Why does anyone feel the need to take on a new name just because you change your religion? I never understood that. I have had epiphanies that dramatically changed my world-view, but I never thought "Now I must take a new name". I'm not criticizing those who do this, since people change their names all the time anyway, but I'm genuinely curious why this phenomenon is so common when people change their religion?
This is what I understand - in the Hindu tradition (perhaps it's similar in Buddhist and Catholic traditions) you are supposed to enter a new life when you become a Sannyasi (monk). One of the initial rituals in many schools is to perform funeral rites for your former self. Through this process, you renounce your family, relations, and what you think of as your "identity". Then the guru gives a new name to the monk. Afterwards, monks are prohibited from talking about their purvashrama (previous life).
There's no universal way to pronounce given letters, especially when transliteration is involved. Neem Karoli Baba chose the name for him. Not sure how the spelling was decided upon, but it seems pretty trivial, as spellings/pronunciations change all the time.
Understanding and living his message (or any other non-dualist teacher) is the #1 to do if you want a successful startup.
(Really, it's the recipe for a successful life. In fact, when you've tasted what he's offering, you may find that stock options, sales funnels, and customer acquisition costs no longer excite you.)
The most effective rape drug ever, turning adults into children who can be exploited.
“I got dismissed from Harvard because I had given psychedelics to an undergraduate. We had agreed with the dean that we would not give psychedelics to undergraduates.” Ram Dass flashes a mischievous grin. “He was an attractive kid.” So do you suspect, I ask, that Maharajji had a hand in making you attracted to men because it would ultimately lead you to him? “I suspect,” he replies with a nod. “He's a rascal.” “Maharajji?” I ask. “Yeah,” Ram Dass says.
There are truths to be seen through the eyes of a child, but there's also the rape-facilitation, too.
> The most effective rape drug ever, turning adults into children who can be exploited.
LSD certainly is not. It's not the safest of psychedelics from the psychological point of view (give it to a kind loving person and they will become even more loving and enlightened, give it to a psychopath and they will become even more dangerous) yet it usually doesn't switch consciousness and reason off (quite the opposite) and doesn't stimulate sexual desire. At least when taken in reasonable doses.
Other than this article, I’m pretty much unfamiliar with Ram Dass, so I’m curious what leads you to believe some form of rape took place. Is there something in Ramm Dass’ past that the article doesn’t cover? I feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s not the drug use alone that has led you to believe this, right?
Ram Dass admits in the article using LSD as an attempt to seduce a male student, against the specific strictures of the University. You aren't allowed to drug people to seduce them. That shouldn't need to be said. But he still thinks that's fine.
"...I got dismissed from Harvard because I had given psychedelics to an undergraduate. We had agreed with the dean that we would not give psychedelics to undergraduates.” Ram Dass flashes a mischievous grin. “He was an attractive kid.”
What are you basing this on? I've been reading up on Alpert and had not heard anything like it. The student who got him fired at Harvard, by the way, was Andrew Weil, who later became famous as a holistic physician. I haven't heard any suggestion that Alpert raped or seduced Weil.
Listening to some of Ram Dass's talks from the 70s, I've been struck by how far ahead of his time he was in facing up to the power dynamics between gurus and disciples, and especially the sexual power dynamics between them. His statements on this from over 40 years ago sound pretty contemporary today. That's unusual, given how different a time that was. So unless you guys have specific evidence that Alpert raped people, I can't help but think you're picking on the wrong figure.
Why do you think he was fired at Harvard then? I'm not saying he actually raped anyone. I'm saying that he attempted to seduce a student with drugs. He seems to admit that himself.
I'm afraid you're misinterpreting some well-established history. Leary and Alpert were allowed to do their psychedelic study at Harvard on condition that they only give the drugs to grad students. Andrew Weil asked to join the study and was turned down because he was an undergrad. But then Alpert allowed a different undergrad to participate (not Weil - I got that bit wrong above). When Weil found out, he wrote a story for the Harvard Crimson exposing that Alpert had done this, which triggered a scandal that got Alpert fired.
Years later, Alpert/Ram Dass mused that one reason he had slipped up and allowed an undergraduate into the study was because he had found the undergraduate attractive. There is no suggestion that he acted on the attraction. He was simply looking back on his own motivations, reflecting on what might have led to his career-destroying move.
One of Ram Dass's qualities as a spiritual teacher/speaker/seeker has been an unusual openness about his personal experiences. He was talking about being gay, for example, long before that was socially acceptable. I think it is a positive thing that he has been so willing to share his own struggles and challenges. Maybe when some other guru character admits to an "attraction" years later, that would be a euphemism for "seduced" or "raped". But there is no reason or evidence to conclude that here. This was just Ram Dass sharing his experience with the same openness he always has.
You misread the quote, that quote is talking about Ram Dass being gay, and his friend having a theory that his guru (Maharajji) made him gay for Ram Dass to find him easier. It's a messy quote and easy to get lost if you are not familiar with who is Maharajji and why is he important on Ram Dass' life.
Ram Dass's intention was to get a chance to sleep with someone he found attractive, and he was willing to use drugs (against a solemn agreement) to help get himself there. Euphemisms have nothing to do with it; just what he's admitted to in so many words. If you find drugging others for sexual purposes acceptable behavior, make sure you check out local statutes before you act on that belief. We can probably infer that the strategy didn't work, but I think we can also infer that the failure wasn't due to any inaction on Ram Dass's part.
That's good to know, thank you. He gave psychedelic drugs to an undergrad because he found him attractive, but may not have acted further on that attraction.
I definitely should have been more charitable in my reading, I got stuck on this:
> The most effective rape drug ever, turning adults into children who can be exploited
I was looking to tease out some clarification, because the implication that these drugs turn adults into children and prime them for rape seems like a strange leap from my perspective.
I’ll happily chalk it up to my lack of charitable reading and assume in good faith the commenter was referring to the drugs combined with the power dynamics.
I think "turning adults into children" is just a reference to using drugs to reduce their inhibitions and/or ability to resist. Not much different from getting someone drunk.
“I had leanings towards homosexuality.... I got dismissed from Harvard because I had given psychedelics to an undergraduate. We had agreed with the dean that we would not give psychedelics to undergraduates.” Ram Dass flashes a mischievous grin. “He was an attractive kid.”
Edit:
From the link below: "To prove someone guilty of any crime, the prosecution generally must prove, 1. That the person physically committed the act in question, and 2. That the person intended to commit the crime. Intent in criminal law is complicated. It refers to a person's state of mind. Criminal intent can be either general intent or specific intent. Most crimes are classified under one of the those two categories. Specific intent crimes, require that the person actually intend to commit the crime. General intent crimes only require proof that the person intended to commit the act, not the crime. For example, theft requires specific intent of not only taking the item but also intending to permanently keep it - depriving the owner of possession permanently. With general intent crimes, the fact that the act was committed is enough to prove intent. "
I think that quote is talking about Ram Dass being gay, and his friend having a theory that his guru (Maharajji) made him gay for Ram Dass to find him easier.
Oh, that guy. See this New York Times article from 1977.[1]
"Over the course of several years, Alpert claimed to have taken some 300 acid trips. Inevitably, the problem became one of facing the blandness of coming down.... Once, he says he and five others locked themselves in a building for three weeks and dropped 400 micrograms of LSD every four hours. Still; when the trip was over, it was over. Finished. Done. In “Be Here Now,” Ram Dass describes the pain: “It was as if you'd come into the kingdom of heaven and seen how it all is, and then you got cast out again.” Looking for a way to get up there and stay up there, maybe even without drugs ... Alpert split for India."
Today. tuned out, turned off, and dropped out of sight.
Unity of God, guru, and Self is the higher truth, and if your veil of attachment is very thin, you may be able, like Ramana, to penetrate directly to that essence in the heart.
But most of us, to get through our busy human incarnation and the profusion of forms we find in our lives, need guidance and help. Seeing the guru as separate from oneself is a way to approach it in steps of lesser truths. It’s a first step toward becoming the One. The reality of the guru or guide as separate from oneself is a method or vehicle for coming to God. It’s using a relationship with a separate entity, dualism, to get to the One, to the reality that the guru is identical with your inmost being.
i.e. God=Guru=Self, see: https://www.ramdass.org/god-guru-self/
However, of all the things Ram Dass has said and done, the mantra (from the article) is all we really need to remember:
“So I accomplish the move from head to heart, in part with mantra: I am loving awareness. I am loving awareness. I am loving awareness.” With each repetition of the mantra, Ram Dass slowly begins charting the daily process of moving his consciousness out of his thinking mind and toward his open, present, compassionate heart—from ego land to soul land.
“All the universe is love,” he continues. “And I'm loving all of the universe.… Everything—everything—has love in it.”
<3