A friend recently brought up an interesting subject of discussion, raised initially by someone claiming to be "spiritually advanced" in a Facebook group post introduction. The problems with this sort of claim and context seems obvious enough: what if such a person was either making up those credentials, using them for some other type of gain, or wrong about their own assessment of attainment? The "average cult leader" is someone best avoided.
But then it's all not as simple as it first appears. How do we distinguish an ingenuine master-type from someone who really has had unique, helpful, and informative experiences, who wants to share perspective deriving from those? Is the problem only related to someone running a scam, or using that as product or service marketing, or is there a broader grey area to be concerned about?
This example led into such concerns. It will be helpful using it as an approach point, so first unpacking what that guy claimed, and what context seemed to relate to making the claims. Some degree of speculation is involved in any review, so I'll try to be careful about flagging which parts are added by my own intuition, which really is most of it, in this case.
About two years ago someone posted a personal introduction in a Thailand-related Facebook group. Who it is doesn't matter, or whether this guy really is a scam artist looking to sell something based off false claims, or else a genuine and accomplished spiritual seeker who really would be helpful to others, if one were to seek out further contact. In the end it does matter, related to his case and actual contact, but this will talk around what goes into making such a distinction, and how different contexts matter.
His back-story was that he had just spent some years meditating under the guidance of a master, as part of an established tradition. I think it even included reference to an actual cave location, and either martial arts or qi gong, but to some extent those details aren't critical. It was also associated, if not then soon after, with selling tea. That's a bit of a red flag, coupling offering spiritual insights with a literal product sales-pitch. In the initial form it was just an introduction though, not a clear marketing step.
I responded to my friend's question, asking about that context and that guy, in discussing my concerns over such a background, in relation to that person making specific claims about spirtitual-scope accomplishments:
I don't know any stories about him cheating people or anything like that. He was telling stories about training in meditation and something like kung fu (martial arts or qi gong) under a master, claims which are typically problematic, but in some instances there could be validity for that.
Related to the specific subject of spiritual attainment, you could find someone in China to certify that you are anything at all by email, with no background. You could be a kung fu master, tea expert, master electrician, whatever you wanted. Real "spiritual" training and experience typically wouldn't come with titles.
He was promoting himself as spiritually advanced; the reference was to training in a cave under a master, or something such. Taken alone the claim implies a related gap. As I see it he is embracing evaluation of that status in taking up the promotion. Someone offering others advice about some meditation practice in a Buddhism group is one thing; that does imply accomplishment, but only indirectly, towards helping others. Using such direct claims as background to sell tea is something else.
This is the problem with [another similar case of a person using a spiritual role to sell tea]. No one can tell how spiritually advanced he is without meeting him, but he is definitely using a spiritual angle to sell tea, for material benefit. I talked to him only one time, mentioning some background with tea and Buddhism as an intro, and he bypassed any further discussion of both subjects to try to sell me a subscription. He's a salesman. That's fine, but even selling spirituality is problematic, to really serve the other role. It can be promoted, but focus on the sales side and literal profit makes one no different than Joel Osteen.
Probably both guys are decent people, and a good bit of that rejection [mentioned in other comments in more detailed form related to other people's takes] does relate to subculture based expectations. I personally don't care for ego and focus on materialism to adjoin spiritual claimed status; my own negative reaction probably relates to something like that.
It could sound like a contradiction, saying that they are probably decent guys, and that it's ok for people to judge and dislike them. As I see it the positioning as a religious figure or accomplished practitioner is the difference. A Christian minister needs to be more ethical than most people to serve that role. Joel Osteen is fine in relation to the ethical standard we hold stock brokers to, but not remotely ok as a Christian minister. This guy brought up the scope in direct claims, and for sure he's using that scope as part of tea sales business. He implicitly embraces being judged differently, since he is tying a business sales function to an image and a background context. Then the last step about me guessing his personal context based on his claims is a bit thin, mostly just speculation.
The introduction based on spending years in some type of meditation training was probably based on some truth; I don't doubt that part. The next implication of spiritual accomplishment is more problematic. But I get why some genuine, valid, informative experiences would naturally lead one to try to "bring wisdom from on high" to others.
That clearly left off with the open-ended conclusion that I don't know how this case works out.
One unusual twist here is that the context helps us try to fill in the gap related to knowing how genuine this form of self-identification really is. Pairing it with selling something is a red flag, but not necessarily a clear indication of the context being false or invalid. He easily could've had interesting, useful experiences that he really would like to share. He could also just happen to sell tea. We have to judge further from other input, or completely suspending judgment is an especially valid approach.
It helps to reference what an "accomplished Buddhist master" actually does look like, but to be clear it won't work to hold anyone who has had any other degree of exposure to the same standard. The modern paradigms that come to mind are Ajarn Chah (of the Thai Buddhist forest tradition), and Thich Nhat Hanh, of the Vietnamese Zen tradition. Both are regarded as accomplished, well-informed, personally-transformed and genuine teachers. The Dalai Lama is along the same line and type, with opinions varying as to whether his political stance and purposes reinforce his spiritual leader role or conflict with it.
 |
Thich Nhat Hanh; we don't have that many genuine spiritual guides like him |
Both of these teachers emphasize personal practice, study of core teachings and practices, embracing an unusual degree of humility, and a rejection of materialism. To be clear I've shifted from Asian spiritual themes in general to focus on Buddhism here; it could be that qi gong practice, or Taoism, within a yoga tradition, or whatever else, doesn't retain the exact same focuses but are also valid. Equally valid? Who knows; that's the kind of thing people need to explore on their own personal journey, and decide for themselves.
A materialist theme was one underpinning thread in what the person was communicating (in the introduced status), but only indirectly. Adjoining the very limited description of practice background was a context including special clothing, elaborate furnishings, and art-collection oriented teaware. To be clear I don't see all of these as problematic at all in relation to anyone's personal interest in tea. It's fine to bridge over to collecting teapots, and statues and figurines, owning unique tables and cabinets that relate to the interest, and wearing traditional Chinese martial arts inspired clothing (or other robes; whatever it is). Those interests aren't invalid in any way, or even problematic.
 |
a dear friend combines interest in tea, teaware collection, and ceremony, and it completely works |
The potential problem is connecting ownership of a lot of "stuff" with spiritual attainment claims. To me that's a contradiction with that context. One would typically start such a spiritual journey by limiting focus on ownership of a range of items that expands their self-image definition. Not right away; setting up some sort of shrine and owning some meaningful symbols would be typical, but pretty soon in focusing on internal versus external connections would come up.
 |
form can seem to overtake function, or maybe this is just an everyday look (photo credit) |
The cave context itself works as an example of how we would tend to use intuition to break down what is implied but not directly expressed. There's nothing wrong with meditating in a literal cave; that could be a quiet, comfortable, isolated natural space. It could also be seen as a red flag related to a teacher putting image above function. The same would come up related to actual certifications of attainment. You might wonder, do such things even exist, would that be common? There's no tight connection to the rest of this but an interesting tangent comes to mind.
 |
judgement based only on appearances is problematic; his religious practice could be completely valid and useful |
I don't want this to be about "naming names" but during the time I was ordained as a monk I went on a retreat to a different sect's meditation center well outside of Bangkok, arranged by my "monk-teacher." I don't think it was chosen as the best possible location and setting for such a training, or the most authentic source, it was just relatively close, and set up for that kind of visitation.
That sect was and still is controversial for selling a lot of magic amulets and such, for focus on material gain as a part of the organization context. Stories about talking statues I heard there were really crazy. They use that revenue to build larger and larger facilities, a theme that comes up in some US Christian ministries. I didn't care for the teachings or form of meditation practice, which related to a accepting that the Buddha was alive in a heaven realm (a bit of heresy there), and to "guided meditation" focusing on trying to see crystal angel images and such. If you said that you visualized a certain thing you would be given a certificate announcing your level of attainment. All not good, as I saw it. I didn't want any certificate.
In the end I don't know how genuine or spiritually advanced the guy I'm discussing here is. Meeting him would help a lot in making that distinction. It's a problem defining yourself as spiritually advanced, but not the same kind of problem I might seem to be implying. People do experience shifts in perspective and even distinct breakthroughs in spiritual progress. If that is what triggered his self-declaration there's a pretty good chance that he's just the kind of person someone pursuing a spiritual path would want to meet, and would be lucky to meet. Just as likely he has experienced some positive aspects of spiritual pursuit and still wouldn't be helpful, due to not getting far, and not having prior exposure to the right kinds of teachers and practice, especially related to placing unusual experience after it happens.
I may be over-reacting to the coupling of spiritual attainment claims with product marketing. We always tend to be biased in relation to expecting what we already experienced to repeat, and prior negative conditioning could be steering me in the wrong direction related to this.
I've not really fleshed out a sort of worst-case yet here: what if that guy had unusual, interesting, potentially helpful personal experiences, but then derived a number of relatively inaccurate, unhelpful, and potentially damaging conclusions and personal practice steps from them? That can happen.
To clarify context with an example, some people really do believe in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and then it matters whether Traditional Chinese Medicine is a set of valid practices or not, or a complete scam. Maybe it's in the middle, with forms varying, and to me that seems likely. If that third option is the fact of the matter then it would be possible to run across better and worse references. Someone with limited legitimate exposure and information, actual positive contact, could have the best of intentions but still pass on very bad guidance. Experiences would vary in relation to differing exposure, and the exact same external inputs would affect different people differently, in terms of ingesting rare herb or root supplements or undergoing different practices.
I've met a tea vendor before who also sold TCM herbs as a separate second business, and asked him about that subject (not one of the two people I've already discussed). He wouldn't say if it was valid or not, but his participation in the business implied that he either saw it as valid or else thought it wasn't but didn't care.
He implied that it was legitimate, but instead of defending it he pushed the validation step off to other people involved who did the TCM analysis and prescription, roughly fulfilling the doctor's role (in the separate Western medicine context). He saw himself as more covering the function of a drug store, which doesn't try to validate the use or effectiveness of anything sold, they just offer it for sale. Fair enough. If he personally thought it was a complete scam that still seems a bit unethical, but withholding judgment is perhaps still a potential option. I'm not sure to what extent he was really "bought in," or else was working within an ethical grey area instead.
This paradigm can't really hold for someone advocating meditation / spiritual practices; they would have to be involved, and completely bought-in. Using that range of experience as a background for unrelated product marketing is perhaps a step closer to a grey area. Really a tea vendor is either selling high quality, good-value, as-sold tea products or else they're not. If they cite health claims that they don't believe in themselves or tell mythical stories that they don't think are true that sort of doesn't matter. No one really knows which health benefit claims are valid anyway. If it relates to a product-background detail maybe it does, or maybe still doesn't; if the tea really doesn't come from beside a wishing-well where some magic event occurred in historical times.
It's probably a more common case for a tea to be sold as from a specific village area when it's really from an area next to it, or as a spring harvest version instead of fall, or from young farm-grown plant sources instead of older natural environment tea trees. The "red flags" sort of matter, because if part of the background isn't real the rest might not be either.
Ideally people should be buying tea for the actual experience of that tea, not as part of a story. In reality different themes like that do tend to mix. Spiritual attainment and tea quality and experience might seem an odd coupling but it wouldn't be completely new for them to combine. Tea experience can take on a meditative form, and the principles and practices found in religious context can support that, and can positively couple with it. Mixing the sales aspects, and marketing, with spiritual practice scope becomes a little strange; one general theme here in this writing is being aware of potential problems with that.
I wrote about that more directly in a blog post about mixing tea experience and "cult" experience, religious group participation, in a limited form. It's less of a sweeping critique of anything remotely like that than an initial title summary may imply. I personally don't see a problem with combing varying forms of interest, tea with mindfulness and religion practice, tea experience with aesthetic interest and art collection, and so on. Focus on the most extreme forms, which would tend to be more negative, helps highlight the scope of the concerns, but in general limited mixing would probably typically be positive. Even the more extreme example I mention, related to a contact I've discussed here, is probably experienced generally positively by most people who come in contact with that group and form.
I'll cite that other blog post for further reading:
On tea popularity and tea cults