Seeking wisdom 101: what teachers truly mean, translated.
Here are some common phrases they use which look like they mean one thing, when in fact they mean another. Allow me to translate.
As you may know, I am sceptical real masters exist — but I stay hopeful that somehow I’m wrong, and I also don’t think this is an all-or-nothing situation. Ideally, I’d like to study under someone like Socrates, who admitted both openly (to others) and genuinely (to himself, judging by his legacy) that he “knew nothing”. (This, to the uninitiated, isn’t to be taken literally. It just means he was open-minded and wouldn’t let his ego take control whenever somebody else challenged or refuted him. Here’s your first translation, enjoy). That said, I’m not wearing my rose-tinted glasses at the moment, so I can see that Socrates was unique. Like we say here, “ní bheidh a leithéid aríst ann” (there won’t be someone like him again). In the absence of this idealised scenario, of course we can study under other, more “normal” (translating: more proud, childish and stubborn) human beings who teach essentialist topics like spirituality, philosophy and metaphysics. After all, just because someone is imperfect, it doesn’t mean they don’t have useful wisdom to share. We all do, in a way.
That’s where my little glossary comes in handy. It can save you a lot of frustration, because you’re sure to end up frustrated if you take these phrases literally instead of translating them. You may want to take notes now, or save this article some other way for future reference. It is entirely the product of personal experience over almost 3 decades of seeking spiritual guidance in many different places and faiths.
Important note: context matters. The following phrases are universally used across faiths and/or schools of philosophy and/or metaphysical subjects, mostly in a 1:1 or small group guidance context. I am not talking about the same words in a public context, ie. Lectures, books, etc. That’s because, these phrases only acquire the double meaning I’m alluding to, if the teacher’s ego is taking control. And our egos only take control of us when we’re feeling PERSONALLY threatened during an interaction in real time with someone else. If we’re speaking to a public, drawing from a pre-edited script or bullet points, we’re unlikely to be coming from a place of “throwing shade at” someone else in real time [or insert other ego-based objective here].
I hope that’s clear. On to the glossary. It’s not in alphabetic order, it’s in order of reincidence instead (how often they tend to happen, from most often all the way to “sometimes”).
“This is your ego talking” / your question (or objection, or comment) comes from an ego place / any similar wording.
Of course, this phrase “wins”! It’s by far the most common you’ll hear, particularly if you’re not a complete doormat and actually keep the interaction going.
What the teacher sounds like: only helping you take note of an instance where you’re not being wise, so that you can become more mindful of it and give up on asking that question. It’s clearly coming from your ego as an immature disciple! But don’t worry, egos are a common human thing, nobody is being shamed. You’re just being guided towards better ways of thinking. Awww. How generous and kind!
Translating what the teacher truly means but won’t admit: they’re as lost as you are. Your question is not something they had considered before, uh-oh! Now they feel pressed against a wall and must admit they don’t know everything. Socrates wouldn’t fall on this trap! But most teachers do. So, by deflecting the conversation towards a “strawman” topic which everyone is always interested in (the human ego and its many artifices), the teacher can go back to being in control of the situation and reuse some random lessons (good lessons nonetheless! But irrelevant to this context) about egos. Ultimately, this can also be a projection: THEIR ego feels threatened, oh no, they can’t admit that. So it’s YOU, isn’t it? Yes. It’s you instead. Don’t fall for that. A word of advice: pretend to agree and move on.
The main takeaway: I’m not saying you don’t have an inflated ego. Both things can be true at the same time! I’m saying it’s disingenuous to divert the conversation to your ego problem, whether real or not, provided that your input was on topic for the class/guidance section in question and had a good reason to be. In that case, the elephant in the room is that there should be an admission of ignorance the teacher owes you.
“People say / people do / people work this way” / any similar generalisation.
Unless your teacher is stating the unnecessary obvious (such as talking about how “all people” are Homo sapiens sapiens, or “all people” have permanent residence on planet Earth)… This is the second most common disingenuous comment you’ll hear from essentialist teachers.
What the teacher sounds like: they’re just speaking from experience, hence the informal tone of this assertion! But informality aside, nothing alarming to see here.
Translating what the teacher truly means, but won’t admit: yes, this can be an anecdotal comment from their personal experience, BUT (important to remember!) they’re also indirectly hinting at the fact they won’t tolerate and/or will feel personally attacked in case anyone brings up a deviation or exception to the stated “rule”. This is the kind of disingenuous comment that can even be unconscious, ie. This teacher doesn’t necessarily mean to be in the defensive, they just can’t help it because of unresolved issues of their own. So, if you want to stay on the right side of this teacher (and prevent further ego trips or covert “tantrums”), do what they expect: just nod and be happy with the extent to which they addressed the topic out of their own initiative — without your input.
The main takeaway: whenever someone gets vague and says “people” instead of stating which specific group(s) of people they’re talking about, in which context(s) and under which circumstances… They’re unconsciously trying to discourage the listener from acknowledging that other contexts exist where such rule may not apply or work the same way. Reasons may vary.
“What about this, what about that” in response to, specifically, “teacher, this technique/thing I learned with you isn’t working” / any similar wording.
Ahhh, whataboutism. A classic in any interaction! Unsurprisingly, it happens in a learning context too. Note that I’m not referring to the (valid!) act of drawing your attention to something in the original lesson which you may have forgotten about. Instead, what I mean by “whataboutism” is another thing entirely: moving the goalposts by introducing completely new information which you couldn’t POSSIBLY have seen or inferred from the original lesson as a way of implying that you weren’t attentive enough (so, yes, there’s a tiny bit of gaslighting in the mix).
What the teacher sounds like: they’re helping you take note of a blindspot which is so hard to see, so next to invisible without their precious guidance, that “of course” you would ask such a question! But fear not, the saviour, the bestest in da wold teacher, is here to rescue you from your beginner mistake of surface-level thinking. You cute, naive child, you! Haha. Just kidding. (Insert here my most disgusted side-eye at this level of patronising behaviour).
Translating what the teacher truly means, but won’t admit: the subject-matter isn’t taken seriously universally (quelle surprise! It happens a lot with metaphysics and similar areas, DOESN’T IT?), and this teacher is self-conscious about that. Instead of telling you from the get-go (or alternatively, telling you after you expressed your frustration) that results may vary because this is a new area of knowledge we still need to study further… They use patronising behaviour and condescension to “defend” their inner child from you, because you triggered something down to that level. Maybe their inner child is feeling sad and disappointed that you took a rose-tinted view of their “good vibes” technique away from them, just as though you were taking a lollipop from their cute little hands. Unconscious to that, but feeling the emotional effect nonetheless, the teacher punishes you in retaliation in a stealthy way. It just happens to be in the shape of whataboutism, with a sprinkle of projection and gaslighting.
The main takeaway: you’re probably dealing with a “wounded healer” type (ie. Someone who is helping others in order to try and find an answer for their own issues which aren’t fully healed or resolved just yet), and the answer here is to slowly walk away and go look for a better teacher. I know the Internet romanticises this archetype a lot, but it’s not a good thing. It’s bad. If you ever find yourself in the position of a wounded healer, that’s ok, don’t beat yourself up, but maybe consider FULLY healing from whatever afflicts you BEFORE you go on to help others with the same exact issue because otherwise, I PROMISE YOU, you will use the people you’re helping as guinea pigs without their consent.
“There’s nuance”. But you wait, and wait, and wait… And they never tell you what the nuance is or guide you towards finding it.
What the teacher sounds like: they’re mysterious and wise. Much wow, very wisdom (like the 2010s meme goes). They magically know, through their very superior intuition, that you will unravel this answer on your own.
Translating what the teacher truly means, but won’t admit: they probably know what nuance they’re talking about. And they’re selling it under a paywall, or subscription, or even a special retreat where you’ll pay even more than what you already paid for the basic lessons, so go ahead and get your hands on it while the stocks last.
The main takeaway: we live under Capitalism. There’s no need to remind me. I am not (and was never, and never will be) against teachers charging for lessons. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a “well respected” or more experimental area of knowledge (the latter is where we find things like metaphysics). It’s learning material all the same, and a lot of effort was put into it nonetheless, so if anything, the teacher is selling you their time. There’s nothing wrong with that! What I’m warning you about is more specific, and it is specifically disingenuous: enticing you with “a little taste” of a lesson, but not the full lesson, because that one can be obtained from a higher price tier (or multiple places, progressively more expensive, until you finally piece the whole puzzle together and realise it could have been one goddamn lecture). This is classic cult leader behaviour and has been happening since the 1960s when Scientology became a thing. So, no, don’t fall for riddles you “slowly unravel”. Leave that to oracles who charge a symbolic one-off price everyone can afford and won’t talk to you, just deliver the riddle. Or, better yet, the holy books we all already know and love.
Don’t fall for “but how will I survive if I don’t have a constant stream of income” whiney arguments either. How will you survive? Bitch, please. Look how many people need guidance to learn the basics, and the intermediate stuff which is already available in full! We stumble on obstacles all the time. There’s no need to “ration” wisdom in fear that it might run out. What the fuck. Go address that scarcity belief, please and thank you.
“I’m not religious at all. What I teach is useful for everyone regardless of faith or lack thereof” / any similar wording.
What the teacher sounds like: they’re a universalist or just someone who doesn’t discriminate. Very wholesome, very approachable. What’s not to love?
Translating what the teacher truly means, but won’t admit: there are 2 possibilities. 1) maybe they are indeed secular but secretly wish they had the balls to pursue a religion because they need religion in their lives personally but are afraid of society’s judgement. Especially because… They won’t go for Christianity, will they? No, usually these teachers prefer niche spirituality. If that’s the case, brace yourself because this teacher might feel envious of you in case YOU have a religion and openly admit it (a thing they won’t allow themselves to do). 2) this is by far the funniest! Maybe this teacher is saying the exact opposite of what is true: they not only have a religion, but are also very devout, perform rituals in secret all the time, believe and talk to at least one god, have the most biased worldview ever because it’s based off of a reconstruction of something ancient they enjoy, but hide this fact from people because in case they revealed it, they’d lose half their following (namely, the non-adepts) and that’s bad news for €€€.
The main takeaway: I have no high horse whatsoever! I don’t label what I do here beyond something super vague (oracle), I’ve left you all wondering. In my defense, though, I did state the reason why already — several times to be precise — but I’ll repeat it once again: I’m on a path considered vaguely Neopagan which unfortunately (and especially due to the deity I work the most with) can easily be appropriated by neonazi motherfuckers. I have found out that if you don’t use buzzword-y labels, you don’t become searchable online and therefore it’s more difficult for “the wrong crowd” to find you and steal your content for their own gain. It’s a wild world. You must be careful. But in private, a lot of people know the details. I’m not self-conscious.
Anyway, digression over, on to what matters: the main takeaway here is that a lot of so-called teachers who are out there hide their religious subjectivity in an attempt to sway followers into believing that what they’re passing on is objective and applicable across the board — when more often than not, it isn’t. Spirituality and religion ARE subjective areas of knowledge, CAN AND WILL influence the manner in which you apply metaphysical and philosophical musings to your (and your followers’) practical lives, and shouldn’t be hidden so disingenuously. And there’s nothing wrong with any of that! But teachers are human, and humans get self-conscious about the oddest things. Even normal limitations like this one.
This “glossary” is non-exhaustive. Feel free to revisit, I will be editing it.
Feel free to suggest your own entries too, in the comments. Don’t forget to tell me how often they came up for you.
