Rare is the Guru

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Bindu*

Isn't Buddha is considered an avatar ?
Not enlightened by step by step sadhana (spiritual practices).
Just like Krishna, Rama, Jesus ?
As avatara is considered awakened from birth. Isn't the the spiritual practices and life script of their life hard to analyse like ordinary saints and masters ?
Isn't it more like a play for show in the game ?

No, he was not born enlightened and I don't believe Jesus was either despite the stories.

His life isn't hard to analyze because he gave us practices to experience it ourselves.

[peteyzen]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

He worked with many, many teachers so I am not sure where you got that from.

He then even sent up a system of monks called bhikkhu's to teach Buddhism. So the Buddha was all about having a teacher/guru. You can't go very far in Buddhism without the empowerments and transmissions from a teacher.

He worked with ascetics, and he recognised that they were too extreme, Buddha himself `discovered` the middle path, his accelerated growth after that understanding took him rapidly to realisation. Yes you are right, in any spiritual system most people cannot progress without the help of the more advanced. However, there are some souls, who have strived very very hard in previous lives, that eventually come back and are able to make those final strides to finish the path. Buddha was one such. This is what I was probably badly alluding to.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Bindu*

Isn't Buddha is considered an avatar ?
Not enlightened by step by step sadhana (spiritual practices).
Just like Krishna, Rama, Jesus ?
As avatara is considered awakened from birth. Isn't the the spiritual practices and life script of their life hard to analyse like ordinary saints and masters ?
Isn't it more like a play for show in the game ?

I tend to agree, everyone is born enlightened but we haven't realized it, when Buddha awoke he got in touch with that which is already within... Teachers/Gurus are without, Buddha looked within when his Teachers/Gurus failed and that is when he 'Awakened '

[peteyzen]

Originally Posted by Bindu*

Isn't Buddha is considered an avatar ?
Not enlightened by step by step sadhana (spiritual practices).
Just like Krishna, Rama, Jesus ?
As avatara is considered awakened from birth. Isn't the the spiritual practices and life script of their life hard to analyse like ordinary saints and masters ?
Isn't it more like a play for show in the game ?

Hi Bindu,
I agree with Jonesy boy. Buddhas path, is one of escape from the human condition to liberation. Although many Hindu texts have assumed Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, this is not so, his story shows this.
I`m now going to ruin my own argument lol, Because, despite Jesus`s 40 days in the desert, I believe that he was born fully god conscious, and was/is therefore an avatar. The 40 days was simply a preparation internally for the work he would do.
Having said all that, as your statement implies, Avatars are enigmatic, and we will never be able to figure them out or predict their behaviour, everything they do, is unique and perfect, but not neccesarily understandable from our standpoint.

[django]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Here you go.. The 5 ascetics were masters of Yoga that he spent time with and mastered each of there methods.

For the next six years, Siddhartha lived an ascetic life and partook in its practices, studying and meditating using the words of various religious teachers as his guide. He practiced his new way of life with a group of five ascetics, and his dedication to his quest was so stunning that the five ascetics became Siddhartha's followers. When answers to his questions did not appear, however, he redoubled his efforts, enduring pain, fasting nearly to starvation, and refusing water.

Whatever he tried, Siddhartha could not reach the level of satisfaction he sought, until one day when a young girl offered him a bowl of rice. As he accepted it, he suddenly realized that corporeal austerity was not the means to achieve inner liberation, and that living under harsh physical constraints was not helping him achieve spiritual release. So he had his rice, drank water and bathed in the river. The five ascetics decided that Siddhartha had given up the ascetic life and would now follow the ways of the flesh, and they promptly left him. From then on, however, Siddhartha encouraged people to follow a path of balance instead of one characterized by extremism. He called this path the Middle Way.




You do understand that only you can take the step to enlightenment?

A teacher and a guru can help light the way, make it easier and faster but you have to take the steps.

That is all that is saying... not ignore them and just figure things out by yourself

He lived with the 5 ascetics and adopted an ascetic lifestyle, but they were not his teachers. They didn't each have a different method anyway, they were all ascetics. He did have 2 teachers earlier though, and tried their methods, but found them insufficient.

I am saying the Buddha didn't find a guru or teacher that was able to lead the way for him, why do you find this so threatening?

You don't seem to be able to accept the Buddha's experience with gurus as it was, and his success without them, you instead refer to how you think I should perceive guru's.

It just takes a bit of objectivity, seeing how it was for Buddha, his relation to guru's, not your relation to guru's, or defending your opinion of guru's.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by django

He lived with the 5 ascetics and adopted an ascetic lifestyle, but they were not his teachers. They didn't each have a different method anyway, they were all ascetics. He did have 2 teachers earlier though, and tried their methods, but found them insufficient.

I am saying the Buddha didn't find a guru or teacher that was able to lead the way for him, why do you find this so threatening?

You don't seem to be able to accept the Buddha's experience with gurus as it was, and his success without them, you instead refer to how you think I should perceive guru's.

It just takes a bit of objectivity, seeing how it was for Buddha, his relation to guru's, not your relation to guru's, or defending your opinion of guru's.

It is not hard at all django.. I know you are against a teacher or a guru because you post against them all the time.

What you don't get is that he did have teachers.. by your admission two of them but he went beyond what they taught.. beyond what was know by Brahmanism.

But the key point is he did go looking and worked with various teachers, achieved what they taught but realized it was not enough, that there was more.

What he taught and the monastic order he founded was the middle way that went beyond the cessation of Brahmanism.

How do you reach that in Buddhism?

With the guidance of a teacher

How do you learn Buddhism, the system of practices that make up Buddhism?

You reach out to a tradition and learn from a member of that tradition. That person who guides and teaches you the methods of meditation and energy work is your teacher and with greater trust he becomes your guru.

In Kashmir Shaivism which this OP is referring to a lama would not be a real guru, a Rinpoche would not be a real guru. Only one who is like Siva, that has realized oneness is a rare guru.. The kind they recommend.

Now let me ask you, why are you so against someone helping someone?

You seem anti help, guru, teacher, etc.. in many of your posts. Beyond your perceived view that it has to be about power, authority issues or someone trying to be better than someone else... do you have any real reason beyond assigning negative intent on others or from experience?

[jonesboy]

He told his first disciples to spread the Dharma far and wide.

Go forth for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction. Teach the Dharma which is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle and beautiful at the end. Proclaim both the letter and the spirit of the holy life completely fulfilled and perfectly pure.[ N1 ]

He also hoped that after his final Nirvana the teachings would continue to spread and he instructed his disciples, both ordained and lay, accordingly.


I shall not die until the monks, the nuns, the laymen and the laywomen have become deeply learned, wise and well-trained, remembering the teachings, proficient in the lesser and greater doctrines and virtuous; until, having learned the teachings themselves, they are able to tell it to others, teach it, make it known, establish it, open it up, explain it and make it clear; until they are able to refute false doctrines taught by others and are able to spread the convincing and liberating truth abroad. I shall not die until the holy life has become successful, prosperous, undespised and popular; until it has become well proclaimed among both gods and men.[ N2 ]

26. The Buddha's motive in proclaiming the Dharma was compassion. He said: "Whatever has had to be done by a teacher out of compassion, for the welfare of his disciples, I have done for you.

...For example, he compared a person who fails to practice the teachings he proclaimed to a beautiful flower without fragrance

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...isciples06.htm

[sky]

Theravada, the "Doctrine of the Elders," is the school of Buddhism that draws its scriptural inspiration from the*Tipitaka, or Pali canon, which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the Buddha's teachings.


In Theravada, a Buddha refers to one who has become enlightened through his own efforts and insight without a teacher..

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

Theravada, the "Doctrine of the Elders," is the school of Buddhism that draws its scriptural inspiration from the*Tipitaka, or Pali canon, which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the Buddha's teachings.


In Theravada, a Buddha refers to one who has become enlightened through his own efforts and insight without a teacher..

Do you have a link for that because Theravada is a teacher based system and even that tradition doesn't make up a different story of the Buddha's life..

He had teachers... many... a simple fact.. I know people who are against teachers don't like that idea... or fact

[django]

History seems more concerned with the fact that the Buddha couldn't find what he was looking for in the teachers that were available to him, and that he found the answer he was looking for within.

Just referring to the Buddha himself, and his path only.

I'm not trying to imply that all guru's are no good, though I think most are not, there might well be that rare guru that does actually know what he's talking about, really I'm just claiming that the Buddha specifically did find his way mostly by himself as peteyzen asserted in the previous page.

Originally Posted by peteyzen

well said Ajay, and I agree. Although Siddhartha paradoxically, found his way mostly by himself, which is extremely rare.

I think you have a very strong need to overemphasize the fact that he sought out teachers and learnt their methods, which no one here is denying, but you seem to underemphasize the fact that they could not teach him what he wanted to know, so then he found this knowledge within himself, from the guru within.