Customer Reviews

Feet Of Clay

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Don't overlook this book--this is one of the finest overviews of the wide range of gurus in history and what they had in common. Disentangling the psychological influences on the guru and the follower is a very difficult trick, and Storr's illuminating review not only draws very clear pictures of the lives and work of many of these figures, but adds several chapters at the end which beautifully analyze in a dispassionate and tolerant spirit the sense and the absurdity in the ideas of both the gurus and their followers. Since we all have the drives which energize this arena it is a public service to elucidate what is happening with the clarity and perspective that Storr achieves. It should be a enormous help to anybody researching the field and a solace to anybody caught in it and trying to escape confusion. A fascinating topic brightly illuminated.

I do not agree with the other reviewer's comments; I think Starr does quite a thorough analysis of the 'gurus', whom he has chosen from a large scope of times and nations. I agree that it is not very scholarly; and furthermore it has a 'conversating' atmosphere to it. But I personally like it that way. It's clear and intelligible. Why make it seem profound, for the sake of looking more important?

The book has eleven chapters. Anthony Starr describes a couple of gurus, whom he identifies as people who declare themselves the experts of life. Gurddjieff, Rajneeh, Rudolf Steiner, and the two leading psychologists Jung and Freud are among these. It becomes interesting when there's seemingly different people.

Starr has a degree in psychiatry, and he's been a professor at Oxford, a distinguished psychiatrist in the English society, as well as honor members of the Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Psychiatrists. To deny his achievements and knowledge, would simply be not right.

His writing is flowing. The whole book is like a long story, but definitely not a long and boring story. His writing consists of his presentation of the gurus with references from other writers and his personal comments in between, which I find quite logical.

The book changed my view over prophets and beliefs. Now I know the reasons why we have major religions, and why some are the only figures in religion. I now recognise the other gurus.

It was also interesting to know about the secrets of Jung's psychological sickness at his late age, in addition to how Freud was driven to become the Freud we know of him.

This book is worth reading every single page. It's a good analysis, and a good story.

Storr provides an interesting review of common attitudes and characteristics of historical figures that have had uncommon personal influence over other people. What he misses, however, is how they attain their power. Storr focuses on their absolute certainty, and indicates that other people believe and follow them because their certainty fills some need. He completely misses the role and techniques of brainwashing that are commonly employed to achieve control over other people's thinking processes.... even over the educated and intelligent. Missing that, he focuses on differentiating between "good" and "bad" gurus, using their propensity to abuse their power as his measure. Those of us who don't believe that the end justifies the means will also wish to reject this accessment: the deliberate effort to confuse other people's thinking and induce compliance through deceit can never be acceptable. This book fills a need, but don't miss Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich's book, Cult's in our Midst, for an understanding of the mechanisms by which gurus acquire and wield power.

I picked up this book on "a study of gurus" after reading about it in John Horgan's excellent book, Rational Mysticism. The book is composed of biographical sketches of a number of gurus--Gurdjieff, Rasjneesh, Rudolf Steiner, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Ignatius Loyola, and Jesus, with occasional remarks about others such as Jim Jones and David Koresh. Storr attempts to identify commonalities among gurus--egocentric, experiencing some kind of personal crisis or madness, re-integrating their personality after the crisis, creating worldviews independent of what was socially accepted, seeking the approval of followers, etc. He distinguishes within the category of gurus between those who act ethically (the saints) from those who are corrupt and abuse their followers (the sinners and the madmen).

The remaining chapters of the book examine some of the features identified in the biographical sections in more detail and concludes with a final chapter about those who follow gurus, and the benefits they receive from such a relationship.

The book was quite readable, but I found it remarkably light-weight--it seems entirely like armchair theorizing, without the benefit of any kind of detailed scientific research. I learned about the specific gurus described, but I didn't feel like I learned anything solid about what the conditions are that create them, their effects on the world, or how to wean people away from them.

Anthony Storr examines the lives of an odd assortment of nine "gurus" (with reference to others along the way): Jones, Koresh, Gurdjieff, Rajneesh, Rudolf Steiner, Jung, Freud, Loyola, and Jesus. He argues that gurus tends to share a number of characteristics, he argues: isolation as children, mental distress followed by "revelation," intolerance of criticism, elitism, hatred of rules, love of speaking and travel, charisma, narcisism, and a delusional worldview. Other religious leaders who fit this pattern -- Buddha, Krishnamurti, Mohammed, Hong Xiuquan -- do come to mind. But Storr does not clearly list all these characteristics in one place or clarify which are necessary. This makes his argument fuzzy around the edges.

The most interesting part of the book for me was the account of the lives of individual gurus. Gurdjieff believed the moon controlled human action: he was literally a "lunatic." Jung and Freud didn't entirely fit Storr's profile, but his take on them was fair enough, I think.

Storr's discussion of my guru, Jesus, seemed contrived. He did not seem too familiar with primary sources, but appeared to filter perception through modern skeptics, respected (Sanders) and dubious (A.N. Wilson). (Nothing from good opposing opinions like N.T. Wright.) Neglect of primary documents may be what Storr calls "science" (a word of which he is fond), but is not good historical method. Thus, he quoted a couple Gospel passages (one very misleadingly) to argue that Jesus was hostile to families. But the Gospels show Jesus was obedient to his parents as a child, had frequent contact with mother and siblings during his ministry (even helping Mom at a wedding) and took thought for her during his death. And Jesus' disciples married. Storr ignores all that: he has a theory to prove. It is plausible, (though not, in my view, reasonable) to dismiss the Gospels as unreliable. But to conjecture about Jesus' psychological state based on second-hand "facts" that are explicitly denied by the primary documents -- that's not scholarship, it's witch-doctory.

Storr takes a similarly tunnel-visioned approach to other aspects of the Jesus question. He lamely ascribes the power of the Gospels to their position in the Western tradition. If that were so, why do many non-Westerners seem to agree with Lin Yutang, the Chinese scholar who anthologized Chinese and Indian literature, and concluded at the end of his life that "no one has ever taught as Jesus?" Storr misses what is most obvious about the Gospels, whether because of over-familiarity, or a pandering, patronizing scientism, I'm not sure. Storr is like a 3rd Grade grammar teacher who corrects the errors of his third graders, William Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky, all with the same confident frown on her face.

Belief in a transcendent calling is delusional, hence a sign of psychic disturbance, only if one is wrong. Confucius believed he had a call from God to preserve the best in Chinese culture and teach China kindness, and that God would preserve his life in the meanwhile. Was he wrong? I would be seriously delusional to see myself as the greatest painter who ever lived. Would Rembrandt? Storr claims to be an agnostic, but he dismisses all evidence for the supernatural without even considering it. He assumes, without argument, that anyone who thinks he has a revelation from God must be deluded, and that miracles are impossible. Then he bases a large part of his diagnosis of the most influential man in history on that assumption. It seems to me for a person claiming to be an agnostic such questions should not be considered settled apart from some mention of the evidence.

The book ends on two more odd notes. First, Storr repeats one of his themes: "morally superior individuals influence others by their private behavior rather than haranguing crowds." Yet the book itself is more a harangue than private behavior. That's all right, were Storr being consistent. Good people have in fact often changed the world for the better by preaching. Secondly, Storr reminds us that "the wish to help is not confined to believers." Of course not. But then, bizarrely, he ends by quoting Nietzche, who despised kind deeds, to support his point.

In the end, this is a difficult book to evaluate. Storr is bright, though not as bright as he obviously thinks, often sympathetic, and appears well-read in psychological literature. I found some of his ideas helpful. But somehow it seems rather tinny. Storr's level of insight is not nearly as deep as C.S.Lewis, (Four Loves and Trasposition are especially relevent), Rene Girard, or Lin Yutang. I suspect the Gnostic science vs. pre-science view from which he works is holding him back. He seems to view people from the outside, as a "scientist," rather than from the inside, as a human being.

Other readers may also find Vishal Mangalwadi's The World of the Gurus interesting.

author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

Certainly an interesting book, but as far as Gurdjieff's 'outlandish cosmology,' the good doctor needs a dose of his own medicine and be somewhat less credulous.

Gurdjieff followed the cryptic method of the Pythagoreans that he called "burying the dog," a cloaking device mentioned by Cicero and Iamblichus.

The lesson? Don't blindly believe everything you read.

I am a medical student and I have been reading some of Dr Storr's books. This one about Gurus. Obviously having all the great people and especially Jesus Christ criticized, in one book, wouldnt be easy. I think Dr Storr is trying to analyse each one of them from views on their personalities, psychodynamics and bahviours which is how exactly psychiatrists look at everyone in the world in order to be objective, and still in a humane way afterall. To me Dr Storr's writings are insightful and very humane, not only in this book of his.

Some readers may find it sad to have their own Guru being criticised. But one relieving point is that you can still appreciate and believe in any man's preachings even you find out that he is not perfect as a person. So yes, if you are not such an ultimate disciple of any of the gurus the author is describing, this book is recommanded.

I hoped for a better, more informative, more readable book than I got. I did get a little bit of the psychological traits that lead to the making of a guru and how to predict the "good from the bad", which was the goal of the book. Somehow I just felt unfullfilled, like a meal that wasn't that hot.

To see the enlightenment storm or altered state of the guru explained through psychiatric eyes is interesting. But when a guru's rigorous teaching techniques and charm are explained in terms of narcissism, the whole notion of spritual enlightenment begins to collapse. But is it fair, and does it explain the incredible appeal and positive influence of some such teachers?

Storr includes such an array of people in his category of guru that the very meaning begins to fade. Only Mother Meera seems to meet his standards for a teacher who is truly compassionate while not exploiting the people who come to be in her presence. Maybe the more important insight is that though gurus are still, in some cases soberingly so, human, they can still offer much to their followers. And the most enlightened ones will also teach them that dropping the attachment is an eventual step in the search. Storr also appears to lack much direct experience--he relies on secondary and tertiary written sources. It's a moot point, but had he been 'zonked' by a guru's energy, he might not find such easy explanations in psychoanalytic and diagnostic theory.

Interesting if rambling overview of gurus past and present and how mental illness plays such a role. Best part of the book concerned an overview of Jesus as the guru of his time.