{"id":1753,"date":"2018-09-19T15:33:53","date_gmt":"2018-09-19T15:33:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1753"},"modified":"2018-09-20T06:59:14","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T06:59:14","slug":"depth-makes-the-teacher","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/general-insights\/depth-makes-the-teacher","title":{"rendered":"Depth Makes the Teacher"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Okay. I immediately ask myself whom I am actually writing this for.<\/h3>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It is striking that people, if they start listening to someone who wants to gain a better \u2018understanding\u2019 of something, tend to some kind of expectation where that \u2018someone\u2019 should fit in.<\/p>\n

Would C.G. Jung talk about an archetype<\/em>? He probably would. Different folks, different strokes \ud83d\ude0a.<\/p>\n

I am snagging on the above mentioned word ‘should’. Apparently it ‘should’ be, as a kind of rule of thumb according to which one assesses whether the insight-teacher is a ‘real one’. Okay. That in itself is a healthy attitude. Of course one should always be critical.<\/p>\n

However, one should also be critical about rules of thumb themselves. For example: should a teacher always be \u2018absolutely certain of his\/her ground\u2019? Or should he\/she at least look like someone who is absolutely certain? Or might it be someone who shows that the path is always on its way itself and that it will always be so?<\/p>\n

‘Looking like someone who is sure of himself’ is part of the expectations of many about whom they’re willing to accept as \u2018teacher\u2019.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That also goes beyond logic. It serves different purposes. It works as a placebo. It reduces the fear of the unknown, and \u2018the unknown par excellence\u2019 is the deeper self. And then we are of course very close\u2026<\/p>\n

Expectations can be very strong in forming reality.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When he\/she has a lack of strength inside him\/herself, a teacher without much depth may tend to rely on the \u2018strength\u2019 that others give him\/her. As a result, these others get (at worst) control over the teacher in a very ego-based way. The ‘wisdom’ that is brought is no longer (and did it ever be) the wisdom of deep experience then, but rather the somewhat blind dynamics of a mere group event. Egos that seek, find, strengthen each other … and abuse the poor teacher.<\/p>\n

The teacher becomes a sect guru. That can happen in many ways.<\/p>\n

So, ask yourself the following questions:<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Are you looking for easy consolidation <\/em>or are you looking for the challenge of real growth which sometimes takes place at the razor\u2019s edge?<\/p>\n

Is ‘striving for depth’ the real goal or is it just a tool<\/em> to fill hidden agendas and then read them emptily? What will remain in the latter case?<\/p>\n

If one does not meet the expectations of a \u2018teacher\u2019 in an ego-based way, it\u2019s possible that certain \u2018pupils\u2019 try to give meaning to this among each other. That is to say: one tries to offer one\u2019s own \u2018certain wisdom\u2019 to the other egos of the group. This is a double trap for the (interim) teacher:<\/p>\n