ANDREW COHEN: My next question is about the role of the guru or master as a role model and example. Shortly after I began teaching over thirteen years ago, I opened my eyes one evening after meditating with a room packed full of people who had come to hear me teach. I remember vividly becoming aware of the absolute trust in the eyes of the expectant faces staring at me from all directions and being stunned by the recognition of the incredibly delicate position I was in as a spiritual teacher or guru. The absolute faith in me as a role model and example of what's possible forced me to consider once again the enormous burden anyone who dares to show the way for others automatically assumes. Even more significant is the fact that a true guru is declaring to the world that it is possible to be free in this life, to stop creating karma through acting out of ignorance and selfishness, to liberate oneself from the destructive power of the ego to cause pain and suffering, to be a living embodiment of victory in this life. I've always felt that without living examples, it's very difficult for a seeker to find a willingness in themselves to take that extraordinary leap of trust into the unknown that real transformation is based on. After all, to take the leap that releases us from the clutches of the ego, we have to be convinced that it is possible to succeed. In your case, you had your own guru as a profound example of what was possible. And no doubt his grace and blessings instilled a confidence in you that you also could carry that burden. Yogi Desai, at this time in the modern spiritual world, there's a deep cynicism about what's actually possible to achieve through spiritual practice and experience. One of the big reasons for this occurrence is because of the disillusionment experienced by so many as a result of the well-publicized failings of many of the greatest masters and gurus of our time. And what seems to be happening as a consequence is that, these days, many psychologists have assumed the mantle of spiritual authority that the gurus and spiritual masters held in the recent past. But those therapists make no bold claims, and they do not challenge the ego in the way that only an enlightened master has the authority to do. So what I wanted to ask you is: Without that authority and without the example of a life lived free from fundamental contradiction, how would it be possible for anyone to believe that one can become free in this life and therefore be willing to take the risk of surrendering their ego?

AMRIT DESAI: The enlightened master still lives as a human being. If it is perceived that the master must be total and complete and have finished all his karma, that he is one hundred percent pure and has everything worked out, that system doesn't work. There is a misconception about enlightened masters and what they are or they are not. As long as they are in the human body, and as long as they haven't completely finished and ultimately reached nirvikalpa samadhi, or the highest stage, they will manifest all of human ego and human manifestations of temptations, likes and dislikes—but on a much more refined or conscious level. It is still going to be there. So the theory that somebody should find such a master is very problematic because they will always find some fault, you know?

AC: But don't you think it should be possible, if someone was truly a master, for them to be able to live a life that's free from fundamental contradiction? Because without that example it's very difficult, if not impossible, for the seeker to have the trust to take that leap beyond the ego. Isn't it essential that there are living examples of masters who are able to live their life free from contradiction? In your case, you had your own guru whom you had absolute faith in. Now I'm sure that if you found that there was a disparity between his words and his deeds, it would have instilled some doubt in your own faith and in your own ability to do the work that you've done over all these years. Isn't that true?

AD: Actually, this is true at a certain stage, but there are other stages of growth where more than the perfection of the master, the faith of the disciple, seems to be most important. And this faith can work at a deeper level than even what the master can provide. Because what the disciple gets from a master is more linked to their own faith and trust than to what the master has even achieved sometimes.

AC: Yes, in some cases it can work that way. In my own case, my guru really helped to liberate me through his grace, and it's impossible to repay that debt of gratitude. But at the same time, there was a disturbing discrepancy between the things that he said and the way that he lived. And ultimately, it led to us having to part ways. But you see, that was after that leap had been taken, and in my case, because my own faith in what I had realized was strong, that experience didn't weaken me. Ultimately, it made me stronger and more independent. But the point is: In order for the seeker to get to that place where they'd be willing to take that incredible leap beyond the ego, beyond the known, they have to believe that this master has done it. Most people need living examples. It's the faith in a living example that enables the seeker to trust—it's like jumping off a cliff or jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Because without that trust, if there's any fundamental doubt about the master, then the heart closes down.

AD: The function of the guru is to help the disciple to encounter all his fears and insecurities, and without that there is no progress. But when a guru initiates that, the disciple is bound to have fear and resistance. So if you just keep trust as the foundation of the guru-disciple relationship, or hold the idea that the guru must provide an example of perfection, almost, in fundamental areas, then it's not going to work, because somewhere along the way, the disciple is going to have so many fears that are surfaced by the guru that the disciple would then be tempted to see the weaknesses in the guru.

AC: You said that someone can become a master, but they're still human, and unless they reach this supreme perfected state, for example, like Bapuji, which very few people ever do, the fact that they're incarnated in a body means there's going to be inherent imperfection. But all I'm talking about is being able to live a life free from fundamental contradiction.

AD: Maybe it will be clear if you say what the contradictions are that you consider fundamental.

AC: Well, that there's no contradiction between, for example, the teacher's teaching and the way that they live.

AD: That is a matter of interpretation.

AC: Really?

AD: Yes. Because you know it is a very well-known fact that when a therapist takes a patient to a certain level of connecting with their past traumas, there are areas where they don't want to face what they need to face to break through those blockages, and they will begin to doubt the therapist. The same thing happens with the guru for a disciple. That is why some gurus really test the disciples. There was a guru who actually made sure that the disciples watched him go to a prostitute. He slept there, and the next day he came out and saw who still wanted to be his disciple. They test like that in India. Some of the great gurus have done that. So it is actually the function of a disciple to—you know, in India they say, "To be like a swan that can separate the milk from the water."

AC: Sure, to discriminate. So the disciple doesn't blindly act from gross, conditioned moral judgments that just come from the culture. They must cultivate a deeper understanding. Is that your point?

AD: Right, they have deeper understanding. So in America people may say, "Well if he's like Nityananda, with a big stomach and a big heavy body, how could he be a guru?" And if that is your concept, how can you ever find the right guru? Because there are other concepts that go with this—

AC: No, but I suppose the point is that if Nityananda said, "In order to be serious about spiritual life, you can't eat more than one apple a day," and then he was this big fat guy who was eating enormous amounts of food every day, that would be the problem.

AD: Right, I know it. I know it.

AC: So that would be an example of a fundamental contradiction. That's what I meant.

AD: There always has to be some degree of integrity.

AC: But what I'm saying is, if we're speaking about enlightenment and real spiritual transformation, the seeker, in order to take that leap beyond the mind, has to be able to trust the fundamental integrity of the guru as a human being.

AD: And what I'm saying is that doubt is not created by the guru; it's created by the disciple.

AC: You once said that two weeks before your fall from grace at Kripalu, you prayed to God to take away your ego. And you implied that everything that happened at Kripalu was God's answer to your prayer. I wanted to ask you, how do you see it all now that several years have passed? Was everything that happened at Kripalu God's way of answering your prayer to help you slay your ego?

AD: I would say it is a result of my karma. If I interpret it in such a way that it helped me to move into the spiritual dimension, then I would say yes, it is God's grace. But not without recognizing that there were lessons in it for me.