Was Ken a guru?
Since a favourite slur of the opponents of Kenja is to label it a ‘cult’, with Ken Dyers as its ‘guru’, it might be worth taking a brief look at what a guru actually is.
The word guru comes from two Sanskrit root words, gu, “darkness” + ru, “that which dispels”. The literal meaning of the word, therefore, is ‘dispeller of darkness’. Anyone who listened to Ken for any length of time is well aware that he spoke frequently of shining the light of Truth as the way to dispel darkness, and that he only ever used ‘stable data’, by which he meant data that worked a hundred percent of the time. This is surely a good definition of ‘truth’, which is elsewhere defined as ‘the exact time, place, event or form’.
By analogy, the guru, or dispeller of darkness, means a spiritual teacher. Ken himself rejected the label of guru, claiming that he was no more than a fellow-traveller on the road to freedom of the spirit and the human. But the term has become grossly corrupted in the modern world, and we need to look first at what a true guru is.
In ancient India, where the term originated, it was always the custom for spiritual aspirants to seek out a teacher who did not teach from books, but rather from his or her own experience and realisation. They would go from teacher to teacher, until they found one who, to their perception, was genuine. Obviously, this would depend on the perception of the seeker, and there were likely always good teachers and bad teachers, just as there are in any form of study today.
Paramahansa Yogananda, whose Autobiography of a Yogi was rated one of the top 100 spiritual classics of the 20th Century, went further in his definition of a true guru. He said that a guru was a person who had attained spiritual realisation for himself, and had then been authorised to go and teach others. Authorised by whom? Yogananda says ‘by God’; we might equally say ‘by the Spiritual Universe’. I recall Ken telling a story, and to my knowledge I heard it only once, of a time during his own journey when he reached a stage of being free from the physical body, so that he was capable of leaving this dimension and not returning. However, when he decided to do so, he was reminded that he had made an agreement to help others on this planet, and so he returned. This seems a fair description of ‘being authorised to teach’.
In the Indian tradition, the bond between guru and disciple, as they are known, is not only spiritual; it is also eternal. This bond is created when the disciple applies, and the guru accepts. Hence, it is never granted lightly. The guru assumes responsibility for his student through however many lifetimes it takes to achieve spiritual freedom. I only recall Ken stating that his commitment was never to withdraw his friendship, once he had given it. I do recall him relating a conversation with someone, who claimed that Ken had accepted responsibility for “clearing” him, to which Ken replied, ‘but not necessarily in this lifetime’. However, Ken often had more than one purpose in mind when he told a story, and it is dangerous to take comments out of context.
The disciple also commits himself or herself to absolute obedience to the guru’s instructions. Of course, this is another of the perversions of modern understanding of the relationship. It does not place the guru as the all-powerful leader of a group of blind followers. No true guru could ever possibly desire such a position, since it would be way below his spiritual reality. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that the guru, by virtue of his very developed spiritual perception, is able to see into a person’s character and history – through more than one lifetime, if necessary. I recall Ken looking intently at me on one occasion and commenting, ‘you had a lot of abilities once, and then you got clobbered’. I have heard him give similar insights to others.
In this context, the commitment of the student to follow whatever his teacher says makes perfect sense. Dabbling in spiritual techniques can lead to insanity, which is precisely why guidance from an ‘enlightened’ teacher is necessary. Just as one would give obedience to an army officer teaching how to use explosives, so would the spiritual student be well advised to follow his teacher’s advice, knowing that his teacher understands him better than he knows himself.
Ken never demanded obedience to his advice. He always gave a person freedom to come or go, and freedom to follow what he said or not. Hence, many people learned far less from him that would have been possible for them. But then again, he eschewed the term guru right from the beginning.
My own conclusion, based on accurate definitions and my own experience, is that, in the real meaning of the term, Ken was a ‘spiritual teacher’, which is the essential meaning of the word ‘guru’. The term guru cannot be used in modern discussion, because it has been twisted, firstly by charlatans from India claiming spiritual status which they did not possess, and even more so by organisations in the West, particularly religious fundamentalists, who have succeeded in turning it into a slur. It is a sign, perhaps, of the degree of spiritual degradation into which modern society has sunk, that the false is exalted and the genuine is denounced.
Nevertheless, those fortunate enough to have seen Ken with the ‘eye of wisdom’ know that he could see into a person’s ‘case’ and so know what their next step was; he had the compassion to lead a person along the path of spiritual growth; and his life’s work was devoted unconditionally to seeking freedom for the human spirit and nothing else.