Is it not the selfless service to God our goal?

[Starman]

For me that which I call “GOD” is not objective, not a separate entity. The word “God” is a title which is given to a most supreme absolute state of being. While I am not a Buddhist, most Buddhist do not believe in God, but they do embrace a higher or greater self.

Human beings tend to fragment the primordial one state of being into many parts and label each part. All we know is this and that when it is my experience that this is that. There is only one thing happening here and the rest of it, in my opinion, is a product of our mind‘s interpretation of that one thing.

If I were to label my perspective it might be as a pantheist with Gnostic leanings. I embrace a primary substance which is the foundation of all other substances, a supreme intelligence which we all have access to. In the concept of the one and the many, the one is the many.

There is no such thing as selfless action, everything we do has a foundation within ourselves; even if that foundation is just to make us feel good. Life in its pure formlessness is not based on logic reasoning or syllogistic bipolar pros and cons. It is based, in my opinion, on a higher wisdom which we may find intuitively.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion.

[Nathaniel]

I see the wisdom in what you are saying Dattaswami.

[Starman]

Swami is a title given to someone who has mastered their own self. Back in the 1970’s I enjoyed the company of Swami Sat Chit Ananda, and I also later followed a Satguru and lived in an ashram for many years, received lots of darshan and enjoyed the company of other devotees. Today my greatest teacher is within me; I do not have an external guru. But I can see the benefit of having an external teacher, someone with a noble title who has integrity and can be of help on the spiritual path, even though in my opinion, we are all teachers and simultaneously also students.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

we live and our expression is for various reasons of life as our lives are. it’s choice isn’t it?

I can't choose to believe in God just as a believer can't choose not to. Too much plays into it. For me a God belief is just an unnecessary complication. Believers are scared to not believe because it's something to lean on, you feel lost without it, and there's hell. That's the Abrahamic perspective. I don't know what the Hindu perspective is, but the Buddhist has no God and creates their own outcomes depending on their volition. At that volitional level it is choice, but not so simple as people become compelled when they get overwhelmed.

We can't do anything about volitions generated in the past. Consequence of that is now fated. We can only be mindful of volition we generate now, so the idea is to be conscious in this moment and remain pure (free from aversion and craving) in that awareness.

The risk of 'serving God' is it can result in self-aggrandisation. I must be an important person doing important things if I'm in service to the Lord. Be cautious where serving God gives rise to self importance, snobbery, superiority and other vanities, as not only good things, but also some of the worst things, are done in His name.

Be kind, honest and respectful and just be present in the moment where you actually live.

You'll notice that the way you react to things affects the sort of will you generate (which determines outcomes), so no matter how mundane or magnificent the experience, it's all a lesson in equanimity.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

Be kind, honest and respectful and just be present in the moment where you actually live.

You'll notice that the way you react to things affects the sort of will you generate (which determines outcomes), so no matter how mundane or magnificent the experience, it's all a lesson in equanimity.

I agree with all your saying.

I think wherever you are doing whatever you do, understanding your intentions and growing through the activations that might arise regardless is tricky when you hold onto beliefs or ideas about why you’re doing it.

Undoing my whole conditioned religious beliefs etc showed me how it weaves through so much of our intentions, fear and reason for being alive.

I prefer to live more consciously aware moment to moment. Generating from an openness and kindness, otherwise like you’ve stated, we only have the consequences to deal with that might not be so favourable.

[Redchic12]

Basically I feel very similar to Gem and JustBe.

This kind of Guru/devotees thing leaves me a bit cold to be honest. Sure these guys are probably self realised people and maybe wanting to help others reach that goal and that is admirable. But I just can’t respect guys who put themselves above others and tell people what they should and should not do. Just my opinion tho.

However, I believe in not looking up to anybody and not looking down on anybody. I only respect and trust people who DONT encourage people to follow them and definitely DONT encourage devotees. If you live with devotees around you then I feel you are still stuck in ego.

Once the Dalai Lama was asked a question by a lay person and he answered, “I don’t know, I’m just an ordinary monk.” Then he went on to say, “But from a Buddhist point of view I can give you an answer.”

I just love that. True Honesty. True humility and no ego involved.

Sure there are devotees hanging around Daramsala where he lives. You will get these kinda people everywhere but apparently he discourages them and never tells them what to do.

Obviously there are other people like him in this world and they are quietly going about their day giving a helping hand here and there and sharing their spiritual knowledge with others who are interested without any big fancy Ashram or devotees hanging off them.

[Unseeking Seeker]

Yes, ultimately this guru thing tends to become a business.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

Yes, ultimately this guru thing tends to become a business.

But it was not always that way. True, today teaching people yoga and meditation, or giving spiritual guidance, has become a business. People devoted to a particular spiritual teacher often lavish that teacher with material gifts. This is true in most religions. Generally people look for a mentor, someone outside of themselves who they can emulate.

Most children look up to their parents in a magical way, even if that parent is abusive. But this is not true of all children. Still most children put their parents on a pedestal, especially when they are very young. Lots of people carry that over to a teacher in adult life.

Here in the U.S. we have mega churches that are supported by the congregation, and T.V. ministers who make a lot of money preaching on television. In the past preachers like Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, and others lived in luxury off of the donations of their followers.

The problem is we give people titles that put them on a pedestal above all others, especially spiritual titles like guru, mahatma, swami, reverend, Imam, etc., that has an air of perfection associated with it. But also non-spiritual titles like president or prime minister, or doctor, and we hold these people in high esteem because of their title.

I was a college professor and when people called me “professor’ it was quite an ego trip. I had to break my attachment to all the adulation which people associated with that title. The thing about being put on a pedestal is that the first thing you do wrong people tend to take you off of that pedestal and hit you over the head with it. All human beings are frail and fallible regardless of their title. It seems to me that lots of people are looking for a savior.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Starman

True, today teaching people yoga and meditation, or giving spiritual guidance, has become a business. People devoted to a particular spiritual teacher often lavish that teacher with material gifts. This is true in most religions. Generally people look for a mentor, someone outside of themselves who they can emulate.

Yes. The genuine Guru-Disciple relationship is special because this bond transcends any particular incarnation. The Disciple reveres the Guru because of the Guru's spiritual attainment. The Disciple trusts that by following the guidance of the Guru then he or she can reach that same state. So the Disciple serves the Guru. But the Guru also serves the Disciple, teaching the appropriate practices and doing whatever is necessary to free the Disciple from illusion and limitation. It is a two way process which continues over many incarnations.

The problem is those people who gain a bit of spiritual knowledge and then want to become a teacher. They mistakenly believe that they are ready to teach others, when they themselves are still students. This is all too common.

But I do believe that disciples attract the guru that they deserve and gurus attract the disciples that they deserve. It is all learning - even following a false teacher offers many lessons, even if it is only learning the pitfalls to avoid.

Many years ago I read an interview with a respected Indian swami who was asked for his opinion on the increasing number of spiritual teachers of varying quality. He said it served a purpose - such teachers attracted the more superficial followers, leaving genuine teachers free to work with those who were more committed.

Peace

[Starman]

iamthat, what you have said makes sense to me. When I was a college teacher I often felt like my students were part of my karma, their behavior and attitudes were reflections of my behavior and attitude when I was a college student. Like what goes around comes around. What we put out does come back to us in some form.

Peace