Never trust the student of a dead guru if their relationship to him or her is their primary credential. - Ryan Nagy
Over the years of working with the students of many deceased teachers such as those of Moshe Feldenkrais, Milton Erickson, Ida Rolf, and many others, I noticed that those who had some type of credential or deep experience apart from the teacher tended to be the most trustworthy and open-minded.
For example, I have had many life-affirming friendships and interactions with direct students of Milton H. Erickson, the noted medical doctor, psychiatrist, and hypnotist.
I believe it is easy to connect with Erickson's direct students because nearly all of them students have a credential or license that had no relationship to him personally. That is, they had training as medical doctors, therapists and counselors. They were independent professionals who added to their knowledge-base and skills through their training with Erickson.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are some people in the Somatics field who have virtually no professional identity outside of their relationship with the deceased guru. You will hear, "I was personally trained by
That's fine. Though, the "personally trained" idea is a bit suspicious when one is speaking about large group trainings. Some people who claim to be personally trained by Moshe Feldenkrais were at his training in Amherst, MA. A training with over 240 people.
But it gets dangerous and unethical, when people say that they are acting on behalf of the guru. My goto example, is David Zemach Bersin from the Feldenkrais Guild who once wrote on an online forum:
“I want you all to know that Moshe very much desired that his work and the words associated with his work be legally protected, and that he wanted and entrusted the Guild to protect them. This was Moshe’s expressed wish. He was also vitally involved in the formation of the Guild and wanted a strong Guild to act on behalf of his wishes.”
The implication is that David Bersin is acting on behalf of a dead person. And if you criticize him or the Feldenkrais GUild you are acting against Feldenkrais and his wishes. Those are implications that lead down the path of being a cult or religion. And that's one othe reasons why many of these people tend to be psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually dangerous. They presente themselves as teachers of the "true" work of the dead guru. And that makes both them and the guru above reproach (in their mind).
Even more, in puts them in a dependency relationship with a dead person. And they strive to create the same dependency relationships in their students that they created in themselves with their "master."
It is particularly true with the so-called, "Senior Trainers" in the Feldenkrais Guild community. The senior trainers are, for the most part, those who studied with Feldenkrais at the San Francisco Training in the early 1970s. A handful of these men and women took control of Moshe's legacy in the 1980s after he was unable to finish his second U.S. training at Amherst and died.
Why do I say the "took control"?
Because Moshe Feldenkrais was not an organization man. He was an inventor, teacher, and explorer.
And his death left a power vacuum.
There were many fights among his students to control his name, service marked terms and to claim who "truly understood" his work. And many mythologies were created about Moshe Feldenkrais and his work.
The fights are still ongoing.
And the mythologies are still being propagated and maintained.
A Difference That Might Make a Difference
So here’s my difference that might make a difference - and you can use it in any field, not just somatics. T
ry it for yourself:
When someone’s main credential is proximity to a dead teacher, ask yourself what you are actually being asked to trust. Are you being asked to trust their skill? Their results? Their ability to think? Their capacity to revise their own model when reality contradicts it?
Or are you being asked to trust a story.
The healthiest teachers I’ve met - in Feldenkrais, hypnosis, Rolfing, therapy, and everything adjacent - don’t act like “guardians.” They don’t speak for the dead. They don’t use a name as a shield. They don’t need you to join their mythology in order to benefit from their work.
They show you what they can do, they invite you to test it in your own experience, and they keep the relationship with reality higher than the relationship with lineage.
That’s my bias, and it’s why I’m comfortable saying it plainly:
Respect the dead (or living!) guru.
Learn from them. Quote them if you must. Bu also argue with them. Dispute them Build on their ideas by creating more accurate models.
But don’t outsource your discernment to anyone who claims to be their authorized mouthpiece.
If you want a living art, you can’t treat a dead person's preferences like scripture.
