What is it about Gurus ?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by CSEe

... how can one claim to know they understand themselve better than others .......

No puzzle.
Meditate for decades and you can claim alot!!!!!

[CSEe]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

No puzzle.
Meditate for decades and you can claim alot!!!!!

If I " mediate" all my life perhaps I could only ' understand" part of "myself" but how can I know how much you understand yourself compare to me ?
So how can Mr Dalai Lama claim to be " teacher" and " teach" others about Buddhism ? What makes him believe that he "understand" himself better than a serial killer ? His ego?????
Thks
CSEe

[Xan]

CSE.. The Dalai Lama doesn't make claims, he just teaches. It's a role he is given in life.

If you think Buddhism is about mental understanding you have only begun to scratch the surface yet believe you know what it's all about. There's so much more to experience of your inner being beyond what the mind can know.

You are right in another post. This can't be taught but, through preparing yourself by learning to let go of whatever you are clinging to, may be spontaneously discovered.


Xan

[Xan]

psychoslice: A true Guru doesn't claim to have anything that you already haven't got...

You're right about this part...


all he or she does is point you to your true inner Being

but not about this. You and I may point others toward becoming aware in their inner Being, but we are not true gurus. That capacity lies in the realm of direct transmissions of consciousness we are not capable of.

Just as those who haven't yet discovered the truth within themselves make assumptions about what it is, so those who haven't known a deep guru relationship do the same.

No one can know what something really is until they intimately experience it for themselves.


Xan

[Arcturus]

Originally Posted by Xan

Guru is a name for a spiritual teacher but not all teachers are gurus, by far.

In Sanskrit guru means someone who can take you from Darkness to Light, which goes way beyond teaching and is more about their fully aware presence than anything else.


Xan

they can point the way but one must walk it hence they actually remove nothing...if they could i think we'd all be transformed by now.

[Arcturus]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

No puzzle.
Meditate for decades and you can claim alot!!!!!

a life of self deception?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by necta3

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Masters/Jiddukrishnamurti_gurutruth.htm


Jiddu Krishnamurti on need of Guru - Can truth be found through another

Question: You say that gurus are unnecessary, but how can I find truth without the wise help and guidance which only a guru can give?

Jiddu Krishnamurt i: The question is whether a guru is necessary or not, Can truth be found through another? Some say it can and some say it cannot. We want to know the truth of this, not my opinion as against the opinion of another. I have no opinion in this matter. Either it is so or it is not. Whether it is essential that you should or should not have a guru is not a quest1on of opinion. The truth of the matter is not dependent on opinion, however profound, erudite, popular, universal. The truth of the matter is to be found out, in fact.

First of all, why do we want a guru? We say we need a guru because we are confused and the guru is helpful; he will point out what truth is, he will help us to understand, he knows much more about life than we do, he will act as a father, as a teacher to instruct us in life; he has vast experience and we have but little; he will help us through his greater experience and so on and on. That is, basically, you go to a teacher because you are confused. If you were clear, you would not go near a guru.

Obviously if you were profoundly happy, if there were no problems, if you understood life completely, you would not go to any guru. I hope you see the significance of this. Because you are confused, you seek out a teacher. You go to him to give you a way of life to clarify your own confusion, to find truth. You choose your guru because you are confused and you hope he will give you what you ask. That is you choose a guru who will satisfy your demand; you choose according to the gratification he will give you and your choice is dependent on your gratification.

You do not choose a guru who says, ''Depend on yourself; you choose him according to your prejudices. So since you choose your guru according to the gratification he gives you, you are not seeking truth but a way out of confusion; and the way out of confusion is mistakenly called truth.

Let us examine first this idea that a guru can clear up our confusion. Can anyone clear up our confusion? - confusion being the product of our responses. We have created it. Do you think someone else has created it - this misery, this battle at all levels of existence, within and without? It is the result of our own lack of knowledge of ourselves. It is because we do not understand ourselves, our conflicts, our responses, our miseries, that we go to a guru whom we think will help us to be free of that confusion.

We can understand ourselves only in relationship to the present; and that relationship itself is the guru not someone outside. If I do not understand that relationship, whatever a guru may say is useless, because if I do not understand relationship, my relationship to property, to people, to ideas, who can resolve the conflict within me? To resolve that conflict, I must understand it myself, which means I must be aware of myself in relationship. To be aware, no guru is necessary. If I do not know myself, of what use is a guru? As a political leader is chosen by those who are in confusion and whose choice therefore is also confused, so I choose a guru. I can choose him only according to my confusion; hence he, like the political leader, is confused.

What is important is not who is right - whether I am right or whether those are right who say a guru is necessary; to find out why you need a guru is important. Gurus exist for exploitation of various kinds, but that is irrelevant. It gives you satisfaction if someone tells you how you are progressing, but to find out why you need a guru - there lies the key. Another can point out the way but you have to do all the work, even if you have a guru. Because you do not want to face that, you shift the responsibility to the guru.

The guru becomes useless when there is a particle of self-knowledge. No guru, no book or scripture, can give you self-knowledge: it comes when you are aware of yourself in relationship. To be, is to be related; not to understand relationship is misery, strife. Not to be aware of your relationship to property is one of the causes of confusion. If you do not know your right relationship to property there is bound to be conflict, which increases the conflict in society.

If you do not understand the relationship between yourself and your wife, between yourself and your child, how can another resolve the conflict arising out of that relationship? Similarly with ideas, beliefs and so on. Being confused in your relationship with people, with property, with ideas, you seek a guru. If he is a real guru, he will tell you to understand yourself. You are the source of all misunderstanding and confusion; and you can resolve that conflict only when you understand yourself in relationship.

You cannot find truth through anybody else. How can you? Truth is not something static; it has no fixed abode; it is not an end, a goal. On the contrary, it is living, dynamic, alert, alive. How can it be an end? If truth is a fixed point it is no longer truth; it is then a mere opinion. Truth is the unknown, and a mind that is seeking truth will never find it, for mind is made up of the known, it is the result of the past, the outcome of time - which you can observe for yourself. Mind is the instrument of the known, hence it cannot find the unknown; it can only move from the known to the known.

When the mind seeks truth, the truth it has read about in books, that 'truth' is self-projected; for then the mind is merely in pursuit of the known, a more satisfactory known than the previous one. When the mind seeks truth, it is seeking its own self-projection, not truth. After all, an ideal is self-projected; it is fictitious, unreal. What is real is what is, not the opposite. But a mind that is seeking reality, seeking God, is seeking the known. When you think of God, your God is the projection of your own thought, the result of social influences. You can think only of the known; you cannot think of the unknown, you cannot concentrate on truth.

The moment you think of the unknown, it is merely the self-projected known. God or truth cannot be thought about. If you think about it, it is not truth. Truth cannot be sought: it comes to you. You can go only after what is known. When the mind is not tortured by the known, by the effects of the known, then only can truth reveal itself. Truth is in every leaf, in every tear; it is to be known from moment to moment. No one can lead you to truth; and if anyone leads you, it can only be to the known.

Truth can only come to the mind that is empty of the known. It comes in a state in which the known is absent, not functioning. The mind is the warehouse of the known, the residue of the known; for the mind to be in that state in which the unknown comes into being, it must be aware of itself, of its previous experiences, the conscious as well as the unconscious, of its responses, reactions, and structure. When there is complete self-knowledge, then there is the ending of the known, then the mind is completely empty of the known. It is only then that truth can come to you uninvited.

Truth does not belong to you or to me. You cannot worship it. The moment it is known, it is unreal. The symbol is not real, the image is not real; but when there is the understanding of self, the cessation of self, then eternity comes into being.




excuse that lack of personal input. still, i think this puts it how i feel it.

This was an amazing read for me. Every paragraph just full of "truth", if you will. It also represents how I feel.
I wonder though, in the end he says truth is the unknown and the mind can only seek the known, thru it's prejudices, in the same way a man can only seek a guru to satisfy his predujices. He then says truth comes to you.
Now I can relate to that...............but................it (truth) comes to you thru the whole person...including the mind. So in essence the mind can know truth.
Maybe he means it cannot seek it...this I would agree with. Truth to me is that which is known aside from that which needs or wants to be known. It is what is.
Great post necta3...thanks for sharing it.
Unfortunately it seems to have been overlooked. It is the perfect response to this subject IMO and in my experience.

James

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by CSEe

... but how can I know how much you understand
yourself compared to me ?

Ha! You don't need to. But it would probably
become inevitable.

So how can Mr. Dalai Lama claim to be a "teacher" and " teach"
others about Buddhism ?
What makes him believe that he "understands" himself better
than a serial killer ? His ego?????
Thks
CSEe

Well, facts are facts. We are what we are.

I have no degree in music; no one has given me a certification...yet,
I am a piano and cello and oboe and clarinet teacher.
I am an artist. I have no art degree, yet I am (as you say ''claim to be'')
an artist and art teacher.

How can I claim to be a teacher and teach about piano and art?
Is it my ego? Either I can or can not. Either I do or I don't.

Because I can and do.
Come see...

...or not.

Absorb and learn...


...or not.

~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe a different way...

I can teach you many, many things about how to manifest things...
I have no certification. I have no degree.
I could be called a teacher or say that I am a teacher of How to
manifest anything you want.
Really, in fact I will do that now.

I, Miss Hepburn, am a ''teacher'' of deliberate manifestation.

The proof would be in the pudding, wouldn't it?

Come and learn...

...or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does that help you understand better how the D. Lama may
call himself a teacher and teach?

Now, you may know more art or Buddhism than I or the D. Lama.
You may have decided not to teach others -so you could not ''claim to be''
a teacher bec you do not teach.
I do
And he does.

So we are teachers and we have students that learn. It's a formula.

Let me know if that helped at all, CSEe.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

Great post necta3..
Unfortunately it seems to have been overlooked.
James

No it hasn't.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by necta3

a life of self deception?

Ref to: Meditate for decades and you can claim alot!!


If I fix cars for decades and say I am a mechanic, is that self deception?
If I drive in races for decades and claim to be a race car driver - is that self deception?

When the mech and racer offer to teach, they may be called teachers.

Self deception? I do not follow that thinking.

I see no decepton or self-deception. He is what he does and says.
(re: the Dalai Lama post)

Asking any student would prove that
- the student is the other part of the formula, you see.


No student, no learning, no teaching. Thus, no ''teacher''.

Student + learning + teaching...ah, a ''teacher'' that ''teaches''