The reason why the guru is the most effective is because the guru is someone you are supposed to look at as being superior to a human being.
But he is also someone you can relate to. A guru is someone who eats pizza, who likes the same pizza that you like.
And that's quite important because at the same time that he is someone you can relate to, he is the one you have consciously or unconsciously hired to destroy yourself!You give up everything and then hire him to destroy your ego. And you pay him body, speech, and mind to do that.
You may not realize that's what you're doing, but that's the idea—to dismantle everything: your identity, everything. And it's not like dismantling one big habit. It changes. Let's say today I would like to be stroked. Then a teacher should not stroke me.
Or maybe today I would like to be beaten. Then maybe I should be stroked. So that's why this is actually beyond abuse and not abuse.
If somebody bites you or beats you and handcuffs you, that's a kind of abuse, isn't it? But what I'm talking about is ultimate abuse.
At the same time, abuse phenomena only exist if you are still clinging to transitory phenomena as permanent and real.
If you don't, there is nothing to be abused. But that's difficult, really difficult.
But the kind of student we're talking about doesn't exist. And that kind of teacher doesn't exist, either. Teachers don't have that kind of courage. I don't have it. I may be a teacher, but I don't have that kind of courage because I love my reputation. Who wants to be referred to as an abuser?
I don't. I am a sycophant. I try to go along with what people think.
If people think a teacher should shave his head, wear something maroon, walk gently, eat only vegetarian food, be so-called serene, then I'm very tempted to do that. Rajneesh had the guts to have ninety-three Rolls Royces. I call it guts. One Rolls Royce is one thing. Even two or three—but ninety-three is guts!
And I don't have the guts, the confidence. I like Rajneesh very much. I like him much better than Krishnamurti.
Many of his words are quite good, and I can see why the Westerners would like him.
I think on both continents I have mastered the art of pretense. I go to Bhutan and I know what to do for them, to do what is most harmonious.
Because if I act or say things in Bhutan or in Tibet that I say in the West, I'll be in trouble.
Now that is what I was referring to before. I do this because I don't want to lose disciples; I don't want to be criticized.
Of course, I can justify those actions by saying, “Oh, it's coming from a good motivation, because I don't want to jeopardize the spiritual path of hundreds of people.”
Yes, exactly. But in both cultures there is one thing that is similar—it's this culprit: expectation. In Eastern cultures, like in Bhutan, there may be blind devotion, but they all have an expectation. In the Western culture, they may be skeptical and secular, but there's also expectation. And that expectation, while it may manifest differently, fundamentally has only one nature and that is that everybody wants to be happy. And that is where things go wrong.To be a Buddhist and to be practicing dharma have nothing to do with being happy.
If you're practicing the dharma to be happy, then it's like you're doing the opposite, just the opposite.
Enlightenment has nothing to do with happiness or unhappiness. And both cultures come to me to be happy.
That really is the source of all the misunderstanding.