It seems to be consistent with modern guru’s or teacher’s behaviors and teachings that liberation or awakening or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it, does not reduce the desire or love of food, money, or sex.

(And yes, I’m aware of the distinction made by some teachers of “self realization” or “establishment” versus a "glimpse" of Reality –  but establishment for who or what?)

It’s merely the attachment or dependence and non-identification with the enjoying body that is reduced – the importance or emphasis. The body goes on doing its “animal” things, according to nature and nurture, preferences and dislikes, needs and wants. As well it should. Breathing, eating and fucking seem quite useful to functioning, in time and space…

Likewise, “ego” (which no one has, really, as it is synonymous with the phantom person that “has” one) may not be reduced, only the identification with said illusory entity. Then, yes, it might diminish, like ripples on the surface of a pond naturally dissipate, when there’s not someone splashing about in it. But try hard to reduce it, and that’s more motion by the splasher.

This “detachment” from ego is indeed what some teachers point out, many times. Others claim there is a reduction of desires, or should be, anyway.

It’s only the desires driven by a psychological dynamic – a neediness or addiction coming from a deep-rooted belief and sense of separation, driving “unnatural” desires and fears – that are problematic (and unhealthy for the body). An un-balance or disharmony is evident.

In other words, what have been called “personal” versus “impersonal” desires and fears are at issue. These personal dynamics are unnaturally perpetuated fears and desires that are not related to any real thing in the present, but are of the mind. Or, created desires, pleasures from the past that are used as compensation for that emptiness or discomfort or whatever “bad” feeling arises – a sense of wanting to escape how one feels, feel better, get out from under the nightmare of one’s own thoughts and feelings, and so forth – such as anxiety, for example. Control the beast…

It seems to be only mythological gurus, such as of the past that claim there is, or should be, a reduction or even complete elimination of earthly desires, by effort or not, without any way for us to verify that (even J. Krishmnamurti had a secret lover). This is a view echoing religious notions and edicts, that attempted to judge, control, castigate, make rules, gather donations, tithings, whatever. A social and political establishment.

The fascinating commonality I see in both pro-guru (fill in in the teacher's name here) groups and the anti-guru groups on social media is this:
People place pre-conditions on what they conceive or imagine as “enlightenment”, such as clearing vasanas, or working on trauma, or certain behaviors, before or after, as if Truth were in time. And then, they say that said guru is "false" or "fraudulent" or "deceiving people", because they aren't following the rules and preconditions they claim, for people that are enlightened or real gurus or sages, and what the earthly behavior has to be, to be real. And we are not talking here about the obvious cases of someone, say, impersonating a Jesus figure so he can have sex with women attracted to him. We are talking about teachers that, for example, makes one tiny hiccup in their behavior, such as getting angry, or expressing a political opinion they don't agree with, or socially, marrying someone people think is a a little too young, and was a "student" in some sense (without knowing what's going on inside the hearts and minds of the "teacher" figure or student), or exhibiting a bit of dementia... whatever. Not being the perfect saint, in their mind. And, if you question this judgement, I hear students saying you can't evaluate who is enlightened unless you are enlightened – yet that's what they are doing!

Isn’t that fascinating? The play of ignorance is incredible...

The fact is, every guru is "fraudulent" in this sense (as a friend who is a non-duality teacher pointed out). The message is what's important — the meaning behind the words — and comes through a vehicle, passes over the head, so to speak, and is registered, as it were, in awareness.

People get mad at the mailman for bringing the letter they don't agree with. And no one, as imperfect as we are, can ever live up to any spiritual message, here on this planet. At least, for any length of time...

It is because they don’t realize that people do not become enlightened – it’s an oxymoron.

There must be some kind of product to sell or an interest that draws people to a teaching or teacher, such as self-improvement, self-realization, “establishment” in true nature. Or to relieve suffering. Or because they are bored or curious. They might actually have all kinds of reasons – they are looking for a person to fall in love with, or idolize, worship, or path to follow, a way of life, a social group, or want to be good or feel good (like going to church). All fine. It just happens.

The thing with non-duality is, much of that stuff, al the activities, can only be an add-on as it were– the yoga and tantra and meditation and dialogues, and Self inquiry and social stuff, whatever else – because non-duality is only a very simple description, a pointer to what Is, and a negation. An undoing of what isn’t.

It’s that undoing where all the complexity, as well as the controversies about method, are seen. Practically an infinite variety of ways are created and tried to un-stick us from this earthly hell and paradise.

But (I have observed) that no matter how many years or decades someone is involved in satsangs, spiritual stuff, non-duality, processes, practices, paths, whatever, it makes no difference in terms of “getting it” – the central insight seeing or glimpse. In other words, Consciousness is calling all the shots. There is not even a real separate entity to surrender. It cannot be done by that non-existent thing. From the point of view of the person, or apparent person or mind, it “just happens”.

However, it will be claimed by that person, or projected onto someone externally. That is inevitable, because that’s how the machinery works.

What all of this points to is, not a cynicism – although a healthy skepticism, I feel, can go a long way – but rather an inherent freedom in what Is. An awareness that sees it all and yet is untouched, by nature. And is always present, even if and when “we” aren’t aware.