The Guru Problem

Originally Posted by durgaa

A Guru is needed unless you want to get lost and deluded in the lower planes.

I am officially a Sikh but unofficially just a human. Although Sikhism is based on ten successive gurus who incidentally all identified with the consciousness of the first guru (Nanak), there is now only the written down collection of many men of higher consciousness called the Siri Guru Granth Sahib. (No women - after all it comes from India a few centuries ago). I also had (have) a spiritual teacher, now I have many. The obedience and reverence for a Guru serves a purpose. It's like choosing to incarnate: ya gotta be somebody before being everybody. It's not meant to divide or be superior, but many fall victim to this. Ultimately, when we give our obedience to only our Soul, we have met our Guru. I don't know if I can call myself a Sikh, but I see no reason to disown the past or the connections.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by wstein

The Guru Problem is that people don't believe they can reach enlightenment/nirvana/heaven/oneness/etc primarily on their own. Because of this they lean on someone(s) that profess to teach them what they need to know. Most give in to following another which means they give their power away. Inevitably, some power seeker rises to prominence in these organizations. This creates a feedback loop of gathering more followers to get more power which draws in more followers ...

Shocked you are saying this wstein.

With real gurus there is no power to give away and you know this. All things flow from the guru is done out of love.

If you are working with someone who says they are a guru and they are very interested in telling you how to live your life. They are not a guru.

Working with a guru is not about not believing that you can do it on your own. It is speeding that process up x1000 in a safe manner. It is a wonderous gift one is given to work with a real guru.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

So, here is the guru problem as I see it:

You have a human individual (pick one of the founders of many of the world religions) who obtains some sort of enlightenment, wisdom or contact with the divine. Let's, for the sake of discussion, only consider those who have altruistic motives to develop and share their wisdom and have no interest in accumulating followers, fame, etc.

Sounds like a good idea. A real guru not a fake one.

Due to the fact that many regions of the world were so isolated at the inception of these religions and philosophies, many of these individuals, although they may have had enlightening experiences,

Think about find the light back in the day. A guru was like a candle in the dark leading the way. Everything points to a guru student relationship, Buddha and Jesus are perfect examples

did not have widespread exposure to what happens when the next generation of not-as-altruistic individuals (or individuals who stick to the words they wrote and don't achieve their own enlightenment) get a hold of the teachings of this revered spiritual master.

With a real guru it has very little to do with any teachings. Teachings explain what a person experiences and helps to put it into perspective.

Fast forward to the 21st century, I believe that as new genuine spiritual leaders step forward, there will be greater care taken to avoid a legacy of division and war. Previously, such leaders only concentrated on conveying their experiences to others, but moving forward, all of us who pursue spiritual study, both novice and "expert", must realize that even the smallest seed of divisiveness that we sow could contribute to century-long conflicts over who is "right" and "wrong". I believe that this is the biggest problem that spiritual leaders face... However, with our greater understanding of international history and connectedness, I also think that anyone who is greatly awakened and has a chance to create a system for the spiritual betterment of mankind will also be fully aware of this problem.

-TaoSandwich

Very cool Tao but I am not sure. Look at all of the different views just on this thread. Look how some think it is all about power and control. Divisiveness comes from the students not understanding the lessons of the teacher. Look at the teachings of Jesus as a perfect example of this.

Gurus are ultimately humans and who is to say that one person is more enlightened than any other? Usually it's the guru and his or her students that claim that and frankly I don't trust that. I don't need a guru. I can talk to "God" anytime I want sans interpretation. Other people's ideas of "God" and their ideas of the path or way you must follow they just get in my way. There are things about Jeshua that I like but when he starts talking about being the Son of God and being the way and the light, that I just can't buy. I don't believe we need a mediator or instructor to teach us commune with the Creator or Creators. We are born doing that naturally. I don't need a guru to show me the way. I'm already there. We all are.

To respond to many of the posts, the relationship between student and teacher should perhaps resemble that of a community of scientists and the peer review process (being a scientist myself, I am somewhat biased toward this viewpoint).

Although there are some important differences between the scientific and spiritual communities (due to the vast variation in our psyches, our perceptions of spirituality are highly subjective and not as consistently repeatable as a rigorous science would demand), the basic principle of a community of people who both seek out those who are experienced experts or young prodigies and also are not afraid to question these same peoples' theories is very important. That is what I meant when I said that students may teach the teachers. It is not that the student will surpass the teacher in every way. Rather, the student might develop insights that allows them to see and correct the blind spots of the one who taught them.

Just like in science, in spirituality, I believe that there are people whose experience, minds, and eloquence allow them to be very good "leaders", spirituality should emulate science in the sense that these traits do not protect such people from being reviewed, debunked or revised if the view is wholly or partially wrong... even if the debunker is the spiritual equivalent of an undergraduate student and has no authority whatsoever.

-TaoSandwich

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Alfeeya

- The obedience and reverence for a Guru serves a purpose.
-It's not meant to divide or be superior...
-I see no reason to disown the past or the connections.

Well said.
The effectiveness of the humility practiced as Peteyzen said... to squash
or control that ego...and I would say
service to and devotion for the teacher/guru is extremely useful.
You have stairs and winding paths...or you have an escalator...

Even those that have left their guru agree 'that part', ie, learning devotion and humility is something
they see is not in the hearts of those that didn't experience it for decades.
And they are grateful for that even tho perhaps they eventually saw things in the guru that caused them to move on.

I would agree you do not need a guru...however, if I had to go through
the streets of a strange and dangerous city alone...it is so much easier and faster to have a guide!!!
I mean they tell you even what to wear and to not turn this way, go here, don't eat that,
instead of getting lost or sick or backtracking.

Now, if you are truly aware of the Divine Presence and in love with the Holy Spirit...well then...

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by Gem

The role of 'authentic guru' is to lend influence to what is said by those who use the term. The name dropping of Mooji, who is famed as a spiritual teacher, serves that same purpose. This allusion to influential figures, either explicitly by name or implicitly by title, has the sole effect of adding weight to what is said in that context.

There is obviously an ocean of difference between a Buddha and an unenlightened one. The one who has reached the summit of a mountain hard and dangerous to climb is in a better position to explain the road-map to others who had not, thus ensuring the path is faster and safer for the others to climb.

Originally Posted by Gem

The authentic saying is more to do with how people entertain notions of enlightenment as something other than themselves, which they can attain for themselves, even if that entails their self constructed image as a disciple.

Originally Posted by Gem

The self is that, whatever it entails, and not something 'other'. People don't want to see themselves. They prefer to seek the other, that which they can attain for themselves, and not themselves itself. All the time, the meditation is a promise of this or that wonderful experience, and very rarely this precise experience just as it is. No, not this, but the other. Yet that which people claim to be seeking is not other than that seeking.

There are many who have learnt from the scriptures and enlightened masters that enlightenment is within themselves, and have understood intellectually, but lack experiential understanding or the unitary perception themselves , and stays content in that position , neither here nor there, and even acting out the position of a master or guide for ego-gratification and becoming unconscious in the process.

Such ones, and novices too, benefit from the company of an enlightened master to attain experiential understanding in a short span of time .

There are also obviously those who are young, highly intelligent, strong and sharp who can understand the import of the scriptures and attain enlightenment on their own through meticulous application. But this is a rarity which has been acknowledged by Bodhidharma himself.

If you don't find a teacher soon, you'll live this life in vain. It's true, you have the buddha-nature. But the help of a teacher you'll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn't need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you're so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you'll understand.- Bodhidharma



The Self is pure consciousness, and the enlightened one is pure consciousness himself devoid of all karma. The enlightened one is thus the Self itself, and attachment to him or her can aid one to attain purification to the point that the inner Self within becomes accessible in a short span of time. One can start one's solitary spiritual journey on one's own from this stage onwards, guided by intuition and proper understanding of the path forward.

Best wishes,

Ajay

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

To respond to many of the posts, the relationship between student and teacher should perhaps resemble that of a community of scientists and the peer review process (being a scientist myself, I am somewhat biased toward this viewpoint).

Although there are some important differences between the scientific and spiritual communities (due to the vast variation in our psyches, our perceptions of spirituality are highly subjective and not as consistently repeatable as a rigorous science would demand), the basic principle of a community of people who both seek out those who are experienced experts or young prodigies and also are not afraid to question these same peoples' theories is very important. That is what I meant when I said that students may teach the teachers. It is not that the student will surpass the teacher in every way. Rather, the student might develop insights that allows them to see and correct the blind spots of the one who taught them.

So you meet someone for the first time and just being around them you notice your chakras starting to burn, your body starts to shake and then with a word from the guru it all starts to calm down and smooth out. All your energy problems you have been having just seems to go away.

Silence or an increasde sinse of calm feels your mind. (Depending on ones depth)

What blindspot are you going to show the guru?

That is what working with a guru is like, from the beginning.

Just like in science, in spirituality, I believe that there are people whose experience, minds, and eloquence allow them to be very good "leaders", spirituality should emulate science in the sense that these traits do not protect such people from being reviewed, debunked or revised if the view is wholly or partially wrong... even if the debunker is the spiritual equivalent of an undergraduate student and has no authority whatsoever.

-TaoSandwich

Many people are fakes. There are many who people think are gurus like Eckart Tolle or Rupert Spira but they are not gurus. They have experienced or do experience oneness/clarity but that does not make someone a guru. That is where people get confused.

[Mr Interesting]

I can't see any problems with Guru's, either naming another as such or someone naming themselves. That is their choice and I'm quite happy that they can make that choice. Because at the same time everybody can also change their mind at any time and all of this this is this and that is that changes and some of this becomes that and the that off to the side may be this for a while.

I do like like the idea of the hiding Guru, the undercover Guru, who can appear in anyone at any time and even in us and that we can never see or acknowledge the Guru, for when we do the Guru is gone, has departed for fresher less obvious climes, then only in hindsight when the mind seeks to clarify what was, can we see that the Guru was there.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ajay00

There is obviously an ocean of difference between a Buddha and an unenlightened one. The one who has reached the summit of a mountain hard and dangerous to climb is in a better position to explain the road-map to others who had not, thus ensuring the path is faster and safer for the others to climb.

To me it only exists as a hypothetical thing I have manufactured in imagination, which has nothing to do with the reality of experience as it is at the moment.

There are many who have learnt from the scriptures and enlightened masters that enlightenment is within themselves, and have understood intellectually, but lack experiential understanding or the unitary perception themselves , and stays content in that position , neither here nor there, and even acting out the position of a master or guide for ego-gratification and becoming unconscious in the process.

Such ones, and novices too, benefit from the company of an enlightened master to attain experiential understanding in a short span of time .

There are also obviously those who are young, highly intelligent, strong and sharp who can understand the import of the scriptures and attain enlightenment on their own through meticulous application. But this is a rarity which has been acknowledged by Bodhidharma himself.

If you don't find a teacher soon, you'll live this life in vain. It's true, you have the buddha-nature. But the help of a teacher you'll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn't need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you're so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you'll understand.- Bodhidharma

The Self is pure consciousness, and the enlightened one is pure consciousness himself devoid of all karma. The enlightened one is thus the Self itself, and attachment to him or her can aid one to attain purification to the point that the inner Self within becomes accessible in a short span of time. One can start one's solitary spiritual journey on one's own from this stage onwards, guided by intuition and proper understanding of the path forward.

Best wishes,

Ajay

I think that is mostly a pipe dream and I like the notion of it, but the interdefining positions, guru/disciple, is a symbolic artifact at best, and has no relevance to my momentary experience as it is. Probably is a framework that's more suited to outers, but whatever the case might be, regardless, at this time a person is as they are, and need not, cannot, be otherwise.