Pythagoras or Socrates. The first written material on the
“master” or founder of these traditions emerges often only
after a long gap, so that in the instance of Pythagoras we find
many of the earliest accounts idolizing and mythologizing
him, attributing numerous miracles to him but remaining si-
lent as to the essentials of his teaching.
According to Aristotle, the Pythagoreans taught that
among rational beings there is that which is God, that which
is man, and “that which is like Pythagoras” (Arist., frag.
192). The spiritual guide, as in the case of Pythagoras, stands
between the human and the suprahuman worlds, between
the mundane and the sacred; the guide is the intermediate
par excellence, mediating energies from above and attracting
disciples from below. The idea is further exemplifed by the
tradition quoted by Diogenes Laertius that Pythagoras was
the son of Hermes in a previous incarnation and that he re-
ceived from his father a memory of all things that had hap-
pened to him (Diogenes Laertius 8.4).
The historical Pythagoras, however, remains a mystery;
we have inherited a fragmentary picture of his ascetic prac-
tices, taboos, sumbola, and orally transmitted maxims, but
nowhere does the man Pythagoras emerge.
The problem with Socrates is somewhat different.
Whereas Pythagoras had no single student to organize his
teaching into a “system,” Socrates was followed by his disci-
ple Plato. But the problem here is trying to separate the real
Socrates, whose stature as an exemplary guide emerges even
in the dialogues, from Plato’s literary achievement “Socra-
tes.” Jacob Needleman’s study of the Symposium (in The
Heart of Philosophy, New York, 1982) reminds us of certain
aspects of Socrates’ personality and energy as a guide, aspects
that have been long overlooked by philosophers. Socrates, as
in the other dialogues, is allowed to speak for himself to the
extent that he alone among Athenians admits that he does
not know; he is a man who is questioning. The state of ques-
tioning once again reflects the idea of the intermediate; it
represents an intermediate state of unknowing, free at least
from false and unexamined views. Similarly, Alcibiades, as
the “authentic” pupil of Socrates, is also alone in that, unlike
the other Athenians, he is neither for nor against Socrates;
many times he wishes Socrates were dead, and yet he realizes
that his death should make him more sorry than glad. Alcibi-
ades is, alas, at his “wit’s end” when he enters the sympo-
sium. A glimpse of Alcibiades’ estimation of Socrates is given
after the former recounts his failed amorous advances:
What do you suppose to have been my state of mind
after that? On the one hand I realized that I had been
slighted, but on the other I felt a reverence for Socrates’
character, his self-control and courage; I had met a man
whose like for fortitude I could never have expected to
encounter. The result was that I could neither bring
myself to be angry with him and tear myself away from
his society, nor find a way of subduing him to my
will.... I was utterly disconcerted, and wandered
about in a state of enslavement to the man the like ofwhich has never been known. (Plato, Symposium 219,
trans. Hamilton)
Many other of Socrates’ extraordinary attributes are de-
scribed by Alcibiades in the dialogue, including Socrates’ ri-
diculous and yet perfect choice of words (221), so that one
might finally agree with Alicibiades that Socrates’ “absolute
unlikeness to any human being that is or ever has been is per-
fectly astonishing” (221).
JUDAISM. Although it is difficult to speculate on the figure
of the spiritual guide as he might have existed in ancient Ju-
daism, as, for example, suggested in the texts of Psalms and
Ecclesiastes, the dominant figure of later times became the
rabbi. The title is derived from rav (“master” or “teacher”)
and a suffix of possession; hence its literal meaning is “my
master” or “my teacher.” In modern times the Western world
has come to regard the rabbi as a congregation leader, but
his original function as a “master” is indicated in the New
Testament where Jesus is frequently referred to as rabbi. Sim-
ilarly John the Baptist is indicated by the title in a singular
instance (Jn. 3:26). Jesus, when he warned his disciples not
to call themselves rabbis, surely meant that this title was not
to be taken lightly.
In Talmudic times the rabbi was an interpreter and
teacher of the Bible and the oral law (Mishnah). Like many
teachers in the nonmonastic traditions of the East, the rabbi
derived no income from these activities but had an additional
occupation that produced private income; most often he was
a simple artisan or craftsman. According to doctrine, all rab-
bis are mutually equal, while reserving their individual free-
dom to give ordination to suitable disciples. However, the
rabbinical mysticism of the medieval period emphasized hi-
erarchy in other ways; to belong to the inner circle of disci-
pleship presupposed an extraordinary degree of self-
discipline. Furthermore, the most esoteric level of exegesis
and transmission of teaching was reserved for the most select:
“It is forbidden to explain the first chapters of Genesis to
more than one person at a time. It is forbidden to explain
the first chapter of Ezekiel even to one person unless he be
a sage and of original turn of mind” (Hag. 2.1).
The title was adopted and altered to rebe by Hasidism
in the eighteenth century. The didactic and often humorous
stories told by the rebeyim of Poland and East Europe were
passed on by tradition, so that collections exist today that
faithfully reflect the scope and activity of these remarkable
guides (see Buber, 1947–1948 and 1974).
CHRISTIANITY. The foundation for guidance and disciple-
ship in the Christian tradition is naturally found in the re-
ported actions of Christ: he called his disciples to him; they
lived with him and were taught by his actions, words, and
gestures.
For Christianity in general, Christ has remained the un-
equaled teacher, rabbi, a transcendent inner guide through
whom man seeks salvation. Over and beyond this tendency
toward reliance on a transcendent guide, Eastern OrthodoxSPIRITUAL GUIDE 8709