> I am advocating that as individuals we learn the programming language of the mind, instead of installing software of the self that do not account for our own personal, subjective experience of life.

I totally agree. I got consistently poor results (and exacerbated my problems) trying to "install software" from someone else. I've gotten consistently good results from learning to build and install my own upgrades (mostly using hypnosis and NLP).

I regard gurus and guru-worship as inherently problematic. Seeking external authority for one's life, seeking to give up responsibility for oneself and one's life rather than embrace responsibility, giving up critical thinking in order to accept someone else's world view, are guaranteed to CREATE problems, regardless of the content of the teachings/practices/ideologies one embraces.

Guru-teach — ANY — guru-teach is a fish: a limited meal that will run out. Learning the skills that make you resourceful in ANY circumstances can keep you fed for life.

Unlike the dominance of the Windows OS in personal computing, each and every one of us runs a different internal OS, based on multiple layers of code written through the years, all surrounding a "kernel" based on genetics and formative experiences too far back to remember. And to make it even more difficult, that OS is constantly being adapted based on current experience and emotion. (As an aside, I'm reading Vaillant's "Adaptation to Life" currently.)

These days everyone – developer and Luddite alike – intuitively understands that Mac programs don't run on Windows, yet we expect that if we pay enough some guru will give us a secret program that will work on our own internal operating system.

Based on my own personal experience and experimentation, it wasn't until I started doing some serious therapy (internal anthropology!) that I was able to even understand the concept of my internal OS and begin mapping its routines and sub-routines. While this self-exploration is a process that I expect to continue forever, it has already paid dividends in my ability to integrate what I know about personal development with my own capabilities and limitations and "refactor" some of my old programming into better outcomes.

To further borrow terminology from software development (specifically the Agile world) I've realized that good facilitators and heuristics are more useful than great gurus and algorithms.

All things happen for a reason. Something like this is helping people second-guess their trust in "gurus." It is making them wonder about alternatives. Yes, it was at the cost of lives, but all things happen in perfection. I have certainly learned something from my time with so-called gurus – that is while they may help lead me in the direction I need to move spiritually, I am the one who needs to make the eventual giant personal leap of going inward for my answers rather than looking for them somewhere outside of myself.

The problem with the gurus I think is that they believe their experience works for all. Consider the phrase: It worked for me so it will for you (all of you). This certainly has integrity but its dangers as well.

Heather and I, in our work as past metaphysical investigators, have seen, so, so many spiritual enthusiast go over-board with their efforts.

Always striving to "ascend" and "evolve" only sets people up to be DISCONTENT with their lives while they're here, on this physical plane. And, as evidenced by this event, it sets them up to get into dangerous situations.

I think the guru is somewhat at fault. If they were to offer subjectivity, they probably wouldn't be much of a guru or sustain any real power. As I said in another comment on this post, I think gurus are mostly a symptom, not a cause. I realize that most people are working on low level software of the mind, and need things to be explained in certain ways, but often times pop-personal development does not offer higher level technologies, and has a tendency to 'trap' people at certain levels of development.

As a lightly alluded to in this post, I don't think the cookie cutter offerings really work. I for one am not concerned with saving people money, but instead the deep social problems that pop-personal development causes. Is James Arthur Ray a cause or a symptom? I think symptom, he filled a niche that our culture seemingly wanted. I don't for a second believe that absolves him of guilt, but it does describe why these gurus come to power.

Thanks for the insight.