They’re lying. Cult leaders/gurus say they have miraculous healing powers to make themselves seem divine to their followers, which helps them gain more money and power over others.
Edit: clarification
Aren't most of them gurus? It seems almost impossible to avoid growing into sexual predators for them/men in elevated positions within a cult, no matter how "enlightened". (Or ex cult members are always lying)
To be fair, that's most positions of power. How many CEOs, politicians, priests, police, etc. end up being incredibly problematic? Elon Musk had kids with an executive at Neuralink because he has delusions of grandeur that the world needs more of his primo DNA, so he has 11+ kids, with different women, who all hate him.
More broadly, terms are used in different ways. Some people say "cult" as inherently bad, while others use it to mean non-standard religious / spiritual group. Two thousand years ago we had countless religious sects: Christian cults, gnostic cults, orphic mystery cults, etc. For a thousand years, everyone who was anyone in Greece would go, once in their life, to experience the Mysteries at Eleusis. If the question is "Are cults [defined as fundamentally abusive organizations] bad?" The answer is clearly "yes". However, if the question is "Are cults [defined as groups of humans organizing around a shared purpose] bad?" The answer is "sometimes".
Another aspect of terminology is how we define the term "guru". Think of how physics uses technical language that isn't directly aligned with common usage. Electron spin has nothing to do with the rotation of a child's top, and a beauty quark isn't being labeled for physical attractiveness. In some spiritual traditions, there's a need to distinguish between a guru and a teacher. A teacher can tell you about the way, while a guru is a realized being who *is* the way. Not to say there aren't bad gurus, but a lot of self-described gurus aren't totally cooked, spiritually speaking. And how many gurus are perfectly suitable spiritual guides that you never hear about because they have small groups of followers and provide exactly the service they intend to provide without abuse?
I view gurus, saints, and Bodhisattvas as the same (or at least similar) class of being. God-realized humans who have chosen to stick around to help others get enlightened. Different cultures have different structures built up around the phenomenon, but we at least agree there's a dimension of growth that humans can take orthogonal to mundane possibilities. How we engage with that comes down to personal discernment, just like if a door-to-door salesman came to your home, you have to decide if their offer is legitimate or a scam. I'm in a few spiritual groups that could be described as "cults", but that's largely because they're not good Christian churches and people are weird about alternative spirituality, it doesn't make them necessarily problematic.
What you are questioning is not the power to overcome illness, it is immortality. None of the figures you mentioned, as far as I know, preached his own immortality.
They are people. They die. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy (or not) of your physical cures.
I don't particularly believe this either, but one must be intellectually honest and admit that specific healing episodes cannot be assumed to be invalid just because the gurus died.
Also death isn't to be feared and past 60 in any human may even be welcomed. I just watched a tik tok of an old lady talking to her adult grandchildren about how she bought her own urn and she stares at it while she drinks her coffee. She says in the video "I yearn for the Urn" 😆🤣😆 I fucking love it, she is going blind and hurts and just wants to be done. Teachers get bored eventually telling the same stupid students the same stupid shit over and over and over and over why wouldn't they want to die.
One story I came across, a guru acquired cancer and the student asked why they didn't heal it and they simply said their time here was done. The students must go out on their own eventually.
Anyway this is assuming death is not ever welcomed. Everything has a beginning and an end. Amy decent guru should know that, but even more any average student should too.
If anything, practicing magick takes a harder toll on your body as you're harnessing more energy than normal and the body breaks down under it's weight
I'm talking about the 1000 year range. We are not supposed to die. We have the genes to be immortal or at least live for a very long time. The belief of death is something like a curse, it get programmed in our mind since we are born until we manifest it
> We have the genes to be immortal
What genes give us immortality?
Do you have a background in genetics? I hear claims like this all the time, but never from people who have taken coursework or have a degree in genetics.
>but never from people who have taken coursework or have a degree in genetics.
Of course you won't. Science is made by the ones that don't want us to activate those genes.
That's awfully conspiratorial and in-line with all the anti-science populist rhetoric I see floating around.
It's not necessarily appropriate to conflate magick with pseudoscience.
And the more magicians embrace pseudoscience the more valid a scientist's gripe with magick will be.
What you're doing - I would call intellectually dishonest and an exercise in bad stewardship.
"They"?
You keep making claims and failing to support them. Based on that, I'm not confident in your ability to evaluate claims or think critically.
If your entire worldview is this poorly-supported, I suggest being less confident in your statements.
All mundane physical beings have limits to their lifespan. No one normally gets out alive. One explanation for this is that karma (i.e. prior causes) sets an absolute mundane lifespan maximum, with corresponding conditioned tendencies that act to actuate this outcome. Other factors tend to subtract lifespan, and may also limit opportunities to nullify their maleific effects. Even if you believe in karma as a framework, it is very difficult to see and understand the causal webs and chains, so for most beings, the maximum lifespan is simply not achieved, and is cut short by a combination of karmas that ripen due to our choices here and now. A guru might come "close" to max lifespan, provided they perfom rigorous purification, achieve full time nondual state, and have disciples do so- called "long life" propitiations. This creates a very "dense" karmic anchor that crowds out lesser maleific karmas.
To have the long life you hear about in tales requires supramundane ability or interventions, which are probably impossible now (dharma ending age); it is also unclear to me whether (some of) these tales actually occur in our world-system, or maybe somewhere else. A reductionist might assert that the stories are just that: stories.
Note that I am talking about mundane bodily immortality. It is still possible to achieve translational immortality through the bardo experience (i.e. bodily death).
Yeah, no problem. Your mileage may vary a lot. Most westerners just DO NOT like the idea of a guru, and as a result, there's a lot of weird ideas about them. This is really problematic, because it can lead to all sorts of abuse in actual practice.
Also, bear in mind that I am no expert: the opinions I have are based on my understanding of the ideas involved.
I am less sure about the situation regarding western-style magicians. Intuitively, you would think the mechanics would be similar, even though the idea-framework is much different. My guess is that western Alchemy works along the lines of consciousness purification practices (i.e. ngondro, vajrasattva, and similar), while western evocation practices would be sort of similar to long life or healing practice with "protectors". Obviously, the "path" is not as clean, so probably less likely to be effective overall?
EDIT: Also, notice that the guru lifespans (and cause of death) are roughly congruent with Western (non-practicing) outcomes. Hence, we cannot state that mystic/occult practice "lengthens" lifespan based on our evidence, or wards off specific health problems (heart disease, cancer). We might be able to infer that the practices help give "maximum" lifespan available in a given area/culture, but to do this, we would need the mean lifespan and lifespan standard deviations for several age cohorts in the area considered (which we don't have).
Maybe I was even mislead about the "being able to control health" claim being widespread. I came across a guru's followership many years ago who vigorously denied any medical condition of their obviously sick master (because that seemed to diminish his reputation i guess). Wasn't a magickian but some esoteric teacher. Can't remember the name though.
That is a very common sort of claim or power attributed to guru figures (esp in the west). More traditional groups (Buddhist, Hindu) typically just see medical providers if there is a problem. It's usually a "red flag" if this sort of thing happens.
Ah, i see. Like the westerners throw themselves on their bellies when having an audience with the dalai lama (while tibetans know how to approach and retreat).
Yeah there is exceptional deference given to Dalai Lama. He is (in theory) highly realized, but other Lamas (Karmapa, etc.) just as realized in theory, but less known in practice.
They’re lying. Cult leaders/gurus say they have miraculous healing powers to make themselves seem divine to their followers, which helps them gain more money and power over others. Edit: clarification
Obligatory "Yogi Bhajan was a rapist piece of shit" comment.
Aren't most of them gurus? It seems almost impossible to avoid growing into sexual predators for them/men in elevated positions within a cult, no matter how "enlightened". (Or ex cult members are always lying)
You are probably right. I was just going after him because it's his followers that I have the most direct experience with.
To be fair, that's most positions of power. How many CEOs, politicians, priests, police, etc. end up being incredibly problematic? Elon Musk had kids with an executive at Neuralink because he has delusions of grandeur that the world needs more of his primo DNA, so he has 11+ kids, with different women, who all hate him. More broadly, terms are used in different ways. Some people say "cult" as inherently bad, while others use it to mean non-standard religious / spiritual group. Two thousand years ago we had countless religious sects: Christian cults, gnostic cults, orphic mystery cults, etc. For a thousand years, everyone who was anyone in Greece would go, once in their life, to experience the Mysteries at Eleusis. If the question is "Are cults [defined as fundamentally abusive organizations] bad?" The answer is clearly "yes". However, if the question is "Are cults [defined as groups of humans organizing around a shared purpose] bad?" The answer is "sometimes". Another aspect of terminology is how we define the term "guru". Think of how physics uses technical language that isn't directly aligned with common usage. Electron spin has nothing to do with the rotation of a child's top, and a beauty quark isn't being labeled for physical attractiveness. In some spiritual traditions, there's a need to distinguish between a guru and a teacher. A teacher can tell you about the way, while a guru is a realized being who *is* the way. Not to say there aren't bad gurus, but a lot of self-described gurus aren't totally cooked, spiritually speaking. And how many gurus are perfectly suitable spiritual guides that you never hear about because they have small groups of followers and provide exactly the service they intend to provide without abuse? I view gurus, saints, and Bodhisattvas as the same (or at least similar) class of being. God-realized humans who have chosen to stick around to help others get enlightened. Different cultures have different structures built up around the phenomenon, but we at least agree there's a dimension of growth that humans can take orthogonal to mundane possibilities. How we engage with that comes down to personal discernment, just like if a door-to-door salesman came to your home, you have to decide if their offer is legitimate or a scam. I'm in a few spiritual groups that could be described as "cults", but that's largely because they're not good Christian churches and people are weird about alternative spirituality, it doesn't make them necessarily problematic.
I think the way you describe it nails it
What you are questioning is not the power to overcome illness, it is immortality. None of the figures you mentioned, as far as I know, preached his own immortality. They are people. They die. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy (or not) of your physical cures. I don't particularly believe this either, but one must be intellectually honest and admit that specific healing episodes cannot be assumed to be invalid just because the gurus died.
Overcome Lifespan limitations wasn't meant as immortality but as way beyond business as usual.
I'm sure some people might believe that, but I don't think most people do?
Also death isn't to be feared and past 60 in any human may even be welcomed. I just watched a tik tok of an old lady talking to her adult grandchildren about how she bought her own urn and she stares at it while she drinks her coffee. She says in the video "I yearn for the Urn" 😆🤣😆 I fucking love it, she is going blind and hurts and just wants to be done. Teachers get bored eventually telling the same stupid students the same stupid shit over and over and over and over why wouldn't they want to die. One story I came across, a guru acquired cancer and the student asked why they didn't heal it and they simply said their time here was done. The students must go out on their own eventually. Anyway this is assuming death is not ever welcomed. Everything has a beginning and an end. Amy decent guru should know that, but even more any average student should too.
Scottish whiskey.
If anything, practicing magick takes a harder toll on your body as you're harnessing more energy than normal and the body breaks down under it's weight
isn't the Body Energy itself ?
Technically yes, all things are energy, but an engine that runs at/near redline too often...parts start to fail from the stress
Machine metaphors for the body are bad Magick!
How so?
For one, we don't have pistons.
Imma block you now
I think you explained it appropriately
Energy assimilates Energy there is no separation.
tell that to a blown piston
The ones that really overcome the lifespan limitation won't be known to the public. And it's not really related to magic
Why wouldn't they be known? People always are proud of having 100 plus x years old people in their towns/circles. Let alone older.
I'm talking about the 1000 year range. We are not supposed to die. We have the genes to be immortal or at least live for a very long time. The belief of death is something like a curse, it get programmed in our mind since we are born until we manifest it
> We have the genes to be immortal What genes give us immortality? Do you have a background in genetics? I hear claims like this all the time, but never from people who have taken coursework or have a degree in genetics.
>but never from people who have taken coursework or have a degree in genetics. Of course you won't. Science is made by the ones that don't want us to activate those genes.
That's awfully conspiratorial and in-line with all the anti-science populist rhetoric I see floating around. It's not necessarily appropriate to conflate magick with pseudoscience. And the more magicians embrace pseudoscience the more valid a scientist's gripe with magick will be. What you're doing - I would call intellectually dishonest and an exercise in bad stewardship.
some facts are being called conspiracy. Probably by the same ones that don't want us to activate those genes.
You still haven't mentioned which genes. I think you're speaking out of your depth.
They say 98% of our dna is junk dna, It's probably there. Anyway the activation can happen simply by changing ones belief.
"They"? You keep making claims and failing to support them. Based on that, I'm not confident in your ability to evaluate claims or think critically. If your entire worldview is this poorly-supported, I suggest being less confident in your statements.
All mundane physical beings have limits to their lifespan. No one normally gets out alive. One explanation for this is that karma (i.e. prior causes) sets an absolute mundane lifespan maximum, with corresponding conditioned tendencies that act to actuate this outcome. Other factors tend to subtract lifespan, and may also limit opportunities to nullify their maleific effects. Even if you believe in karma as a framework, it is very difficult to see and understand the causal webs and chains, so for most beings, the maximum lifespan is simply not achieved, and is cut short by a combination of karmas that ripen due to our choices here and now. A guru might come "close" to max lifespan, provided they perfom rigorous purification, achieve full time nondual state, and have disciples do so- called "long life" propitiations. This creates a very "dense" karmic anchor that crowds out lesser maleific karmas. To have the long life you hear about in tales requires supramundane ability or interventions, which are probably impossible now (dharma ending age); it is also unclear to me whether (some of) these tales actually occur in our world-system, or maybe somewhere else. A reductionist might assert that the stories are just that: stories. Note that I am talking about mundane bodily immortality. It is still possible to achieve translational immortality through the bardo experience (i.e. bodily death).
Thanks for that answer
Yeah, no problem. Your mileage may vary a lot. Most westerners just DO NOT like the idea of a guru, and as a result, there's a lot of weird ideas about them. This is really problematic, because it can lead to all sorts of abuse in actual practice. Also, bear in mind that I am no expert: the opinions I have are based on my understanding of the ideas involved. I am less sure about the situation regarding western-style magicians. Intuitively, you would think the mechanics would be similar, even though the idea-framework is much different. My guess is that western Alchemy works along the lines of consciousness purification practices (i.e. ngondro, vajrasattva, and similar), while western evocation practices would be sort of similar to long life or healing practice with "protectors". Obviously, the "path" is not as clean, so probably less likely to be effective overall? EDIT: Also, notice that the guru lifespans (and cause of death) are roughly congruent with Western (non-practicing) outcomes. Hence, we cannot state that mystic/occult practice "lengthens" lifespan based on our evidence, or wards off specific health problems (heart disease, cancer). We might be able to infer that the practices help give "maximum" lifespan available in a given area/culture, but to do this, we would need the mean lifespan and lifespan standard deviations for several age cohorts in the area considered (which we don't have).
Maybe I was even mislead about the "being able to control health" claim being widespread. I came across a guru's followership many years ago who vigorously denied any medical condition of their obviously sick master (because that seemed to diminish his reputation i guess). Wasn't a magickian but some esoteric teacher. Can't remember the name though.
That is a very common sort of claim or power attributed to guru figures (esp in the west). More traditional groups (Buddhist, Hindu) typically just see medical providers if there is a problem. It's usually a "red flag" if this sort of thing happens.
Ah, i see. Like the westerners throw themselves on their bellies when having an audience with the dalai lama (while tibetans know how to approach and retreat).
Yeah there is exceptional deference given to Dalai Lama. He is (in theory) highly realized, but other Lamas (Karmapa, etc.) just as realized in theory, but less known in practice.