Ever had a Guru ?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bandit

They say you are supposed to accept everything a Guru teaches as absolute in order to be the right one for you. I would not go quite that far.

Eek.

Maybe it's my anti-conformist upbringing, but anytime a person says to accept everything they teach, I think "cult!"

It seems impossible that any person can agree with everything another person teaches without giving up their own critical thought, reason, intuition, and experience. That is to say, without becoming a robot. Which is scary and why people end up drinking arsenic-spiked Kool-aid waiting for some comet to take them all back to their home planet.

I would say a good teacher, spiritual or otherwise, encourages people in their own capacity and thirst for learning. A good teacher makes someone uncomfortable, challenged, and awakened to their potential. This discomfort is not to be seen as something to get over through agreement, but rather as an invitation to expand one's own capacity for understanding. One's own capacity can lead in a different direction from the teacher.

Sometimes our path may be with one teacher for a while that gives us what we need at that time, and then it is time for a new teacher. Other times, the same teacher might be all we need for our entire lives. In many ways, life and the earth itself is the ultimate teacher, providing us with countless individual teachers that are temporary manifestations of that underlying counselor.

If you seek out a guru or teacher of any sort, please approach with caution and reason. A teacher should not, in my opinion, resonate because the person is what you want them to be, but rather because the person awakens potential and growth in you. Sometimes, that comes as a result of disagreement rather than agreement. Other times, it causes you to recognize in yourself principles and understandings you have long had, but never consciously realized. But be very wary of any teacher that demands you give up your other relationships, a substantial chunk of your income, or somesuch for their teaching. From what I've seen, the truly amazing people in life that are deeply spiritual are not bent on acquiring control, power, or cash. And don't forget that a person can become powerful, including energetically (which can appear to be spiritual power), when they are not connected at all with Divine. There are many powers in the world, most I find to be neutral, which means the intention of the practitioner is what directs the power... the power is evidence of skill and not of intent, of practice and not Divine communion. Deeply spiritual teachers may have a great deal of power, but they will have risen above the desire to throw it around or use it to control others, and they will not ask you to admire them as much as to investigate yourself.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

Are you defining a Guru as a religious teacher ?

Not at all. I would say some of the more important teachers are not acting in a formal "religious teacher" capacity. Likewise, their teachings wouldn't need to be "religious" in a formal sense.

Does a Guru have to be able to prophesize ?

I don't think so. I was merely noting that some people have gifts, but they do not make a point of calling attention to them in order to convince you that they have special authority.

Originally Posted by Bandit

They say you are supposed to accept everything a Guru teaches as absolute in order to be the right one for you.

Who said this? And what about in instances where you don't know the person is your Guru until years later?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Not at all. I would say some of the more important teachers are not acting in a formal "religious teacher" capacity. Likewise, their teachings wouldn't need to be "religious" in a formal sense.


I don't think so. I was merely noting that some people have gifts, but they do not make a point of calling attention to them in order to convince you that they have special authority.


Who said this? And what about in instances where you don't know the person is your Guru until years later?

That would be hindsight, as contrasted with the the foresight that you mentioned on the part of the guru.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Who said this?

Your mama says it.

To me it is quite obvious if I am rejecting things the teacher teaches, then they are not my teacher. You should study the gurus of the Orient and Indians. It is also possible a guru can reject a student for not accepting what he teaches and is viewed as a lifeless lump of coal that will never shine. In some cultures one is assigned.

If you know better than the teacher does, then you are a lousy disciple and not a very good student. Obedience to the guru is better than reverence. How do you expect to become a beautiful piece of clay that can be used if you aren't willing to stay in the middle of the wheel and in the potters hands?

You could start with Guru-shishya tradition bhakti yoga, for one.

And what about in instances where you don't know the person is your Guru until years later?

What about it?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Your mama says it.

To me it is quite obvious if I am rejecting things the teacher teaches, then they are not my teacher. You should study the gurus of the Orient and Indians. It is also possible a guru can reject a student for not accepting what he teaches and is viewed as a lifeless lump of coal that will never shine. In some cultures one is assigned.

If you know better than the teacher does, then you are a lousy disciple and not a very good student. Obedience to the guru is better than reverence. How do you expect to become a beautiful piece of clay that can be used if you aren't willing to stay in the middle of the wheel and in the potters hands?

That would be the heavy-handed approach.

Originally Posted by Bandit

What about it?

That would be the light-handed approach. (Like dusting off the cobwebs to reveal what's already there, rather than trying to reshape the dust and muck.)

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Not at all. I would say some of the more important teachers are not acting in a formal "religious teacher" capacity. Likewise, their teachings wouldn't need to be "religious" in a formal sense.

Who says that?
Then you do not know much about gurus. That is not how the orignal word from the east and Sanskrit is defined at all. A Guru is in fact a spiritual master, leader, parent or religious teacher and very much so in a formal sense and they guide through their wisdom, authority and knowledge.

Of course you could apply the word to math and call someone a wizard guru with numbers. That would not neccessarily imply they are a qualified teacher of math.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Who says that?
Then you do not know much about gurus. That is not how the orignal word from the east and Sanskrit is defined at all. A Guru is in fact a spiritual master, leader, parent or religious teacher and very much so in a formal sense and they guide through their wisdom, authority and knowledge.

Of course you could apply the word to math and call someone a wizard guru with numbers. That would not neccessarily imply they are a qualified teacher of math.

Indeed, the word guru means heavy.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

That would be the heavy-handed approach.

I would call it acceptance of each other from student to master and master to student. Rather than a heavy hand, Some of the Oriental masters will not deal with a student until they are ready to be respectful and obedient to learning what they know.

Karate Kid is a perfect example. "Wax on, wax off" was not accepted as part of the teaching at first. He rejected both the chores and "Wax on, wax off" as learning something and learning from someone such as Miyagi. Though his interest is karate, the child learns many lessons about life, spirit, victory and how to balance through accepting all his teacher has to teach, including wax on wax off.

I know that I have a true Guru for me because I accept everything that she teaches. I may not agree with all her opinions on politics or music or styles but I do agree with all of her particular teaching that she is known for and that came only through acceptance of each other, not so much a heavy hand or light hand.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Indeed, the word guru means heavy.

It is only heavy if the student can't accept wax on wax off for their own good. Then they should not be there in the first place

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Eek.

Maybe it's my anti-conformist upbringing, but anytime a person says to accept everything they teach, I think "cult!"

We are only separated by two consonants on that one.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Eek.

Maybe it's my anti-conformist upbringing, but anytime a person says to accept everything they teach, I think "cult!"

It seems impossible that any person can agree with everything another person teaches without giving up their own critical thought, reason, intuition, and experience. That is to say, without becoming a robot. Which is scary and why people end up drinking arsenic-spiked Kool-aid waiting for some comet to take them all back to their home planet.

I couldn't agree more about using caution and a lot of it.

I think you might be misunderstanding what that really means. A true guru will be able to admit that they are not meant to be everyones teacher and will have no problem letting someone go freely or to come & go as they please. Some teachers do not even know they are a teacher to some and they admit this.

Just because someone teaches you things that you accept because they help you does not mean it is a cult. Two people agreeing does not mean they did not choose to agree and does not make them robots. I doubt very many people who deliberately go looking for arguments can ever fully accept a teacher anyway, so if you can't fully accept them over time, then there is no point in being there and they are not your teacher. I also do not believe everyone goes looking for a teacher and finds one just because they shop for one. It will freely & commonly and mysteriously happen between pupil and teacher. The guru/pupil relationship has to click to bring an awakening, and the awakening should start first and then you realize who your teacher is. Others are simply drawn to a teacher and they don't know why until they figure it out later. I would never expect my guru to be for every student nor someone elses teacher to be able to awaken things in me, and an honest Guru will make that clear.

I actually have two gurus who came at different times in my life showing me different things, and they both rock.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Bandit

To me it is quite obvious if I am rejecting things the teacher teaches, then they are not my teacher.

It is obvious to you, but it does not follow. Not accepting everything a Guru says at face value is not necessarily a bad thing. It might only indicate something about the disciple's temperament, but that doesn't always mean that no learning is possible.

Originally Posted by Bandit

A Guru is in fact a spiritual master, leader, parent or religious teacher and very much so in a formal sense a

I disagree. Sometimes teaching of doctrine is not indicated because it would only add to the disciple's confusion.

Btw, it appears the build up of doctrinal content has a social function - i.e., as a PR gimmick by which the person demonstrates that he/she is the right person for the Guru role, a self-serving manipulation of source credibility that has little or nothing to do with the actual consequential validity of the guru/disciple relationship. Formal teachings would be a way to pass the time anyway.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It is obvious to you, but it does not follow. Not accepting everything a Guru says at face value is not necessarily a bad thing. It might only indicate something about the disciple's temperament, but that doesn't mean that no learning is possible.

It follows. You don't follow. What it indicates is, that person is not ready to learn from that guru, thus that guru does not belong to him and maybe never will. It also indicates that the student wants to tell the guru the way it should be.

I disagree. Sometimes teaching of doctrine is not indicated because it would only add to the disciple's confusion.

Btw, it appears the build up of doctrinal content has a social function - i.e., as a PR gimmick by which the person demonstrates that he/she is the right person for the Guru role, a self-serving manipulation of source credibility that has little or nothing to do with the actual consequential validity of the guru/disciple relationship. Formal teachings would be a way to pass anyway.

You sound paranoid. I am not talking about stupid doctrines that religions create as I would expect nothing but confusion and discord from that.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Your mama says it.

My mother is deceased.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with.

AN 3.67: Kathavatthu Sutta

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It is obvious to you, but it does not follow. Not accepting everything a Guru says at face value is not necessarily a bad thing. It might only indicate something about the disciple's temperament, but that doesn't always mean that no learning is possible.

Originally Posted by Bandit

It follows. You don't follow. What it indicates is, that person is not ready to learn from that guru, thus that guru does not belong to him and maybe never will. It also indicates that the student wants to tell the guru the way it should be.

It is inconceivable to me that even the most loyal of students wouldn't experience doubt regarding their guru.

Working through doubt, of one's self, one's teacher, and one's faith is part of the process of learning.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bandit

I couldn't agree more about using caution and a lot of it.

I think you might be misunderstanding what that really means. A true guru will be able to admit that they are not meant to be everyones teacher and will have no problem letting someone go freely or to come & go as they please. Some teachers do not even know they are a teacher to some and they admit this.

The expansion of your line of reasoning makes sense. It was just without this expansion, it made it unclear as to discernment in choosing a teacher. Far too many people search to fill some void and are thus quite vulnerable; far too many others are manipulative and take advantage of people who are seekers.