PDA

View Full Version : Why is having a Guru so important?



Hiwaunis
13 August 2007, 05:49 PM
I would love to have a Guru. But honestly, with the information age what it is today why is an actual person necessary? Is a Guru like a Catholic priest or a pastor of a church?

yajvan
13 August 2007, 07:20 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I would love to have a Guru. But honestly, with the information age what it is today why is an actual person necessary? Is a Guru like a Catholic priest or a pastor of a church?

Namate Hiwaninis,

Let us hope the guru is not like the priest. Gu-ru is the dispeller of darkness. What is 'dark'? - Ignorance.

We would want a guru that is the exponent of Brahman - Brahmavit. One of personal experience of Brahman, and one who can communicate it to the sisya ( student).

Its said that the guru finds the student - the student practices and prepares oneself for this meeting i.e. He/She is the sadaka, practicing sadhana. Yet I am of the opinion( again this is me), that one also can make the effort to find the guru. Others may have different views on this matter.

'Some people say that having taken a guru you should not make another. But this doctrine is not of the shaastra, this is [just] mind's imagination. The guru is gone to for happiness. Up until when bhagavad (God, Vishnu, Shiva) is gained, up until then you can go and change guru. So then we haven't seen any guru-bhakt (devotee) always studying in the same 'class' of a guru out of fear. Actually it is natural to transfer 'class' and to transfer guru. It is not disrespectful to the former guru, actually respect has been done the guru, but if you are to go beyond that study, you get the discipline of new gurus.' ... Swami Brahmanada, Shakaracharaya of Jyotir Matt , some years back

sarabhanga
13 August 2007, 08:11 PM
Namaste Hiwaunis,

Religion was originally a personal matter of correct “selection” or “perception” of Truth. Over time, however, the various selections made by some inspired members of different cultural groups have become “set in stone” for those groups, and subsequently their particular cultural version of “religion” or Dharma has been presented more dogmatically.

The Vedas were originally passed by learned Brahmanas from generation to generation only by direct speech and were never actually written down, and this process has been continuous over millennia.

At some point, the written code of Brahmi (and later Sanskrit) was established, and the Vedas were fixed in writing for the first time.

The production of actual scripture (the written word as opposed to the spoken word) is perhaps the main reason for the historical change in the perceived nature of religion (from wise choice to veritable bondage) which has tended to occur in all the established faiths.

Islam is the only major religion that was absolutely fixed in writing from its very inception, and most Judeo-Christian sects rely entirely on texts that were fairly rapidly fixed ~ and dogmatism is one of their hallmarks.

The Bible became fixed in Latin translation, and then re-fixed in English translation, and thence into every language on earth; but this has all happened in the absence of any living Guru, since the Prophet who presented the original words (in Aramaic) was executed (or at least disappeared) and his devotees declared that there can never be another teacher who is actually one with God!

For Hindus, however, the purity of an eternal and yet living Word of God is available in the mantras and shlokas transmitted and explained by wise Gurus; and there remains the possibility of fine-tuning the Vidya (without altering its essence) for individual circumstances.

It is the long experience and deep consideration of a wise Guru that makes his/her advice valuable (indeed priceless).

The revealed scripture, the wise teacher’s transmission, and the aspirant’s own heart ~ these are the essential components of Sanatana Dharma.

willie
14 August 2007, 09:05 PM
The quran was done after mohammads death, and was drawn from the transcripts of everything he had said over a number of years.

The oldest edition of the old testament is in greek and is in the vatican. The reason the new testament was done in latin was so that only the catholic priests could read it and not the common person. As most of the population could not even read the spoken language of the street.

As for the vedas being passed by work of mouth , well that may have be true and not telling how much modification went on in the stories over the years. Besides we don't even have to complete work and if we did it might define hinduism as being something totally different from todays practice.

sarabhanga
15 August 2007, 06:34 AM
We don't even have the complete work and if we did it might define hinduism as being something totally different from todays practice.

Namaste Willie,

I would be interested to hear your own understanding (or definition) of Hinduism as it is or should be (either from the known Vedas or from today's practice).

yajvan
15 August 2007, 10:14 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Besides we don't even have to complete work and if we did it might define hinduism as being something totally different from todays practice.

Willie,

conjecture...

I guess it is time to play, one more time, Bring me a rock - no!!! not that rock... Yes, but I said one that is blue. Oh ok, the blue one, but its too big. Yes, this is the right size, but it has sharp corners. Now this one, you have brought has a hole in it, no holes... Lets see this one - this one you have brought has no holes but the corners are rounded. Well, not this one, it is almost what I need but is just not appealing to me... Let me look at the next one...the next one, the next one.

Willie, We have addressed this on multiple occasions:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1501
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1504
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1508


Let me know ask one simple question - pls tell me and the viewing audience any samhita, brahmana, aranyaka or upanisad you have read [ in full or in part] for consideration to form an opinion? Can you point me to one of the 10,552 mantras of Rig veda that you have chosen to consider or ponder? Any of the the 10 mandalas? Pehaps the Sama ved or others?

We await your reply on the methods you have engaged in, and the insights you have gained to form these opinions.


thank you,

willie
15 August 2007, 09:09 PM
I think that somewhere in the vedas it mentions that brahman might or might not know what the universe was before it came into existance. So why are people wanting to go back to the beginning of the universe to try to prove some point?

And there seem to be a passage about people things being like sparks comming off of a fire , then falling back. But it does not say that the same spark continually leaves the fire and comes back. Sees to talk about one trip per spark .

I also seem to remember something about the atman being the same material as brahman but I don't remember it saying that it was a part of brahman.


For an incomplete work it has sure generated a lot of thoughts and books about what it means but in the end it is a very small slice of the entire work. And it might not even be a statistically valid slice. As we don't know where it was taken from and what was said before and after the passages.

In a large sense hinduism has fallen victim to what all religions fell victim to in the early years. Some socalled holy people tied up all the information and passed it on by word of mouth to a select few, keeping themselves in power and an authorative role. I wonder how many time small strokes and siezures caused the stories , that were passed on, to change and what might have been lost.

And what were the practices of the average hindu of the period? Did the have much knowledge of the entire or were the just going thur the motions?

Look at the present practices! No real central authority to enforce any rules. Practices that vary so widely that a person has a hard time telling if it falls into hinduism or just some mumbo jumbo. More gurus than you can shake a stick at, no telling how many are real and how many are just pulling off a con game.

Then here we all are taking about he meaning of words of all things. When anyone who has ever studied a language knows that the academic language and the street language have only a noding aquaintance. In ancient egypt, in roman times, there used to be large parties about every 6 month , with a lot of music and beer drinking, and during that time they used to say that people took a walk in the reeds. Well a walk in the reed meant that they had sex with a lot of people while drunk. Just because a string of words say one thing , does not mean that it means that.

satay
15 August 2007, 10:53 PM
Just because a string of words say one thing , does not mean that it means that.

okay! :D

sarabhanga
16 August 2007, 01:04 AM
Willie:

The whole of Hinduism is based on the Rig Veda, and although it is thought that 25 recensions once existed, today we have only five. But those five show NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in composition.

There are numerous recensions of the other Vedas, and they differ VERY LITTLE in content, only with some change in the arrangement of verses.

It is most unlikely that any lost recension would dramatically alter the current understanding.

I have noted before that the Rig Veda (at least) is silent on the subject of reincarnation, and that the doctrine was mainly developed in the Upanishads.

Those who were wise enough to listen to and understand the message have retained it. And those who never listened or could not understand have never had it. The knowledge has always been open to anyone willing and able to grasp it.

Only those ignorant of Sanskrit or unwilling to approach a wise Guru for interpretation have been excluded by their own inability.

You have repeatedly referred to the Vedas as “an incomplete work” and implied that the true nature of Hinduism is consequently lost. But no other religion or philosophy or science is ever given such strict requirements! Just because everything that has ever been authoritatively written in the field of Hindu Dharma is not still existing today, that doesn’t mean that the whole subject is corrupted or to be doubted. The vast majority of Christian writings have been lost and what remains has been edited half to death.

Sanatana Dharma is the most ancient living religion, and Sanskrit is the most ancient living language, so of course there has been much loss and rediscovery and recapitulation, and both names and interpretations have evolved (with society) over time.

All texts could be lost, and all memories wiped, but so long as the 12 lines of Mandukyopanishad remained, then the whole of Advaita Vedanta could easily be recovered. And it is said that at one time the Veda was indeed lost, but the son of Rishi Angiras by chance heard someone correctly pronouncing AUM, and the whole Revelation was immediately recalled to his mind!

Hinduism does have central authorities (they are called Shankaracarya), and they enforce the rules for Sannyasins, but not for the general public, who are always free to accept or reject their wisdom.

Hinduism does not require an “Inquisition”, nor does it require that everyone thinks the same or acts the same way.

Hinduism has very many teachers, and that should be good news ~ unlike other religions which insist that the last viable teacher died out centuries ago.

Instead of just shaking a stick at all Hindu Gurus, why don’t you try listening to what they have to say? But if you jump from the teachings of one Guru to those of another Guru (and another), without seeing any one course to completion, you will only become more confused about the true nature of Hinduism!

From your posts it is quite evident that you have not examined even a single line of the Vedas, only vaguely recalling a couple of comments from this or some other internet forum.

The sum total of your years of posting to HinduNet and now HinduDharmaForums is nothing but dreary negativity and ignorant repetition.

You don’t claim to be Hindu, you don’t practice Hinduism, you despise all Hindu Gurus (without ever meeting them), and you doubt all Hindu texts (without even looking at them).

I can see no sensible reason for your presence on Hindu internet forums, and I can only assume that your aim (just like vcindiana) is to spread doubt and division and to degrade the reasonable discussion of Hinduism in any forum that is tolerant enough not to ban you.

You seem to enjoy getting banned from places, and once banned you would only go off somewhere else and crow about the intolerance of those who banned you. So, to avoid wasting any more time, it is probably best for me just to ignore your pointless prattle.

Quite frankly, one of the reasons that I abandoned HinduNet and moved to this forum was to avoid this kind of conversation with people like you ~ of which there were too many on HinduNet forums. But some of those just slipped straight over to this forum to continue poking their sticks.

I know that the Baha’i “religion” dislikes organized religion (except for their own) and they dislike the whole idea of fixed sacred texts and priests and gurus and such. And these are the things that you constantly harp about. And I cannot imagine anyone who was not committed to some cause would spend so much time over many years in religious forums spreading negativity and doubt about whatever the professed religion and about all of their esteemed priests, gurus, teachers etc. So my guess is that either you subscribe to the Baha’i faith or you are just an atheist with bee in his bonnet and too much time on his hands.

Unless you can dispel my doubts, in future I will not respond to your posts. But don't be surprised if pointless repetition and unsubstantiated negativity about Hindu Dharma is deleted from your posts.

Arvind Sivaraman
16 August 2007, 04:14 AM
I would love to have a Guru. But honestly, with the information age what it is today why is an actual person necessary? Is a Guru like a Catholic priest or a pastor of a church?

Om Shirdi Sai Ram.
Namaste Hiwaunis.

The following is an extract from the book called "Shri Sai Satcharita".
The wonderful leelas(Miracles) of Shri Shirdi Sai Baba are mentioned in this book.

Wherever 'me' is mentioned it indicates the author of the book Shri.Hemadpant.

"Hot Discussion

On the first day of my arrival in Shirdi, there was a discussion between me and Balasaheb Bhate regarding the necessity of a Guru. I contended, "Why should we lose our freedom and submit to others? When we have to do our duty, why a Guru is necessary? One must try his best and save himself. What can the Guru do to a man who does nothing but sleeps indolently?" Thus I pleaded freewill, while Mr. Bhate took up the other side, viz., Destiny, and said, "Whatever is bound to happen must happen; even great men have failed, man proposes one way, but God disposes the other (contrary) way. Brush aside your cleverness; pride or egoism won’t help you." This discussion, with all its pros and cons went on for an hour or so, and as usual no decision was arrived at. We had to stop the discussion ultimately as we were exhausted. The net result of this was that I lost my peace of mind and found that unless there is strong body-consciousness and egoism, there would be no discussion; in other words, it is egoism which breeds discussion.
Then when we went to the Masjid with others, Baba asked Kakasaheb Dixit the following: -
"What was going on in the (Sathe’s) Wada? What was the discussion about?" and staring at me, Baba further added, "What did this Hemadpant say?"
Hearing these words, I was much surprised. The Masjid was at a considerable distance from Sathe’s Wada where I was staying and where the discussion was going on. How could Baba know our discussion unless He be omniscient and Inner Ruler of us all?
Significant and Prophetic Title
I began to think why Sai Baba should call me by the name Hemadpant. This word is a corrupt form of Hemadripant. This Hemadripant was a wellknown Minister of the kings Mahadev and Ramadev of Devgiri of the Yadav dynasty. He was very learned, good-natured and the author of good works, such as Chaturvarga Chintamani (dealing with spiritual subjects) and Rajprashasti. He invented and started new methods of accounts and was the originator of the Modi (Marathi Shorthand) script. But I was quite the opposite, an ignoramus, and have dull, mediocre intellect. So I could not understand why the name or title was conferred upon me, but thinking seriously upon it, I thought that the title was a dart to destroy my ego, so that, I should always remain meek and humble. It was also a compliment paid to me for the cleverness in the discussion.
Looking to the future history, we think that Baba’s word (calling Mr. Dabholkar by the name Hemadpant) was significant and prophetic, as we find that he looked after the management of Sai Sansthan very intelligently, kept nicely all the accounts and was also the author of such a good work "Sai Satcharita", which deals with such important and spiritual subjects as Jnana, Bhakti and dispassion, self-surrender and self-realization.

About the Necessity of a Guru

Hemadpant has left no note, no memo about what Baba said regarding this subject, but Kakasaheb Dixit has published his notes regarding this matter. Next day after Hemadpant’s meeting with Sai Baba, Kakasaheb went to Baba and asked whether he should leave Shirdi. Baba Said, "Yes". Then someone asked - "Baba, where to go?" Baba said, "High up." Then the man said, "How is the way?" Baba said, "There are many ways leading there; there is one way also from here (Shirdi). The way is difficult. There are tigers and wolves in the jungles on the way." I (Kakasaheb) asked - "But Baba, what if we take a guide with us?" Baba answered, - "Then there is no difficulty. The guide will take you straight to your destination, avoiding wolves, tigers and ditches etc. on the way. If there be no guide, there is the danger of your being lost in the jungles or falling into ditches." Mr. Dabholkar was present on this occasion and he thought that this was the answer Baba gave to the question whether Guru was a necessity (Vide Sai Leela Vol. I, No.5, Page 47); and he thereupon took the hint that no discussion of the problem, whether man is free or bound, is of any use in spiritual matters, but that on the contrary real Paramartha is possible only as the result of the teachings of the Guru, as is illustrated in this chapter of the original work in the instances of great Avatars like Rama and Krishna, who had to submit themselves to their Gurus, Vasishtha and Sandipani respectively, for getting self- realization and that the only virtues necessary for such progress are faith and patience. (Vide Sai Satcharita, Ch. II, 191-92). "

yajvan
16 August 2007, 09:51 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I think that somewhere in the vedas it mentions that brahman might or might not know what the universe was before it came into existance. So why are people wanting to go back to the beginning of the universe to try to prove some point? that.

Willie , with all due respect you are confusing Brahma with Brahman - two different entities.

That said, if I am remiss, can you advise where you read this...any hint of location is welcomed.

regards,

chandra
16 August 2007, 02:13 PM
GURU DOESNOT ONLY MEAN THE GROSS BODY BUT ITS THE PRINCIPLE==="TEACHING PRINCIPLE"


SO, WITH OUT THIS ONE CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING IN LIFE.

EVEN FOR SMALLER THINGS IN MATERIALISTIC WORLD ONE NEED GURU &&&&&&& IN SPIRITUALITY GURU IS ESSENTIALLY NEEDED

sarabhanga
16 August 2007, 07:43 PM
Namaste Yajvan,




I think that somewhere in the vedas it mentions that brahman might or might not know what the universe was before it came into existance. So why are people wanting to go back to the beginning of the universe to try to prove some point?

I do tend to agree with Willie here. ;)




Can you advise where you read this?

I have referred to this numerous times, but here is the full hymn again, both in Sanskrit and English (as translated by Griffith).


Rgveda 10.129


नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् ।
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥१॥
न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः ।
आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किं चनास ॥२॥
तम आसीत्तमसा गूढमग्रेऽप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमा इदम् ।
तुछ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम् ॥३॥
कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत् ।
सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा ॥४॥
तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः स्विदासीदुपरि स्विदासीत् ।
रेतोधा आसन्महिमान आसन्स्वधा अवस्तात्प्रयतिः परस्तात् ॥५॥
को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः ।
अर्वाग्देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यत आबभूव ॥६॥
इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न ।
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥


nāsadāsīnno sadāsīttadānīṁ nāsīdrajo no vyomā paro yat |
kimāvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarmannambhaḥ kimāsīdgahanaṁ gabhīram || 1 ||

na mṛtyurāsīdamṛtaṁ na tarhi na rātryā ahna āsītpraketaḥ |
ānīdavātaṁ svadhayā tadekaṁ tasmāddhānyanna paraḥ kiṁ canāsa || 2 ||

tama āsīttamasā gūḍhamagre'praketaṁ salilaṁ sarvamā idam |
tuchyenābhvapihitaṁ yadāsīttapasastanmahinājāyataikam || 3 ||

kāmastadagre samavartatādhi manaso retaḥ prathamaṁ yadāsīt |
sato bandhumasati niravindanhṛdi pratīṣyā kavayo manīṣā || 4 ||

tiraścīno vitato raśmireṣāmadhaḥ svidāsīdupari svidāsīt |
retodhā āsanmahimāna āsansvadhā avastātprayatiḥ parastāt || 5 ||

ko addhā veda ka iha pra vocatkuta ājātā kuta iyaṁ visṛṣṭiḥ |
arvāgdevā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yata ābabhūva || 6 ||

iyaṁ visṛṣṭiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na |
yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyomanso aṅga veda yadi vā na veda || 7 ||


Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? And what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day’s and night’s divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart’s thought discovered the existent’s kinship in the non-existent.

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.


See also: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=4663#post4663

yajvan
16 August 2007, 09:58 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Yajvan,


I do tend to agree with Willie here. ;)


I have referred to this numerous times, but here is the full hymn again, both in Sanskrit and English (as translated by Griffith).


Rgveda 10.129


Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.


Namaste,

I see "not non-existent nor existent" - this , for me, says creation in the trancendent state, the Absolute, pure Being.


"He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

"He verily knows it or perhaps he knows not" for me suggests,does He know Himself? Is there SELF Referal?

I am looking at a copy of the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda (hard copy) by Sayana. I want to see who the diety of the mantra is addressed to, as that will help, yet I do not find 10.129. My copy is numbered by Mandala, then anuvaka then suka. e.g. 10.1.11.
That said, if this passage is adressed is Brahman vs. Brahma, then I stand corrected and appreciate the guidence.

Pranams,

sarabhanga
16 August 2007, 10:57 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

The RSi is prajApati parameSThI (i.e. brahmA) and the devatA is bhAvavRtta (i.e. brahmA).

As you have suggested, the hymn is pure Self musing.

And even brahmA (i.e. prAjña) is unable to comprehend the brahma (i.e. turya).

yajvan
17 August 2007, 10:55 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

The RSi is prajApati parameSThI (i.e. brahmA) and the devatA is bhAvavRtta (i.e. brahmA).
As you have suggested, the hymn is pure Self musing.
And even brahmA (i.e. prAjña) is unable to comprehend the brahma (i.e. turIya).

Namaste,
This is how Great, how Full (Bhuma) this Being is... we can see the wisdom then of Yajnavalkya when he tells Gargi ' O Gargi, do not question too much. Lest not your head fall off. O Gargi, you are questioning too much about divinity which is not to be questioned' - Gargi Brahmana, Brihadaranyaka

This for me is not a reprimand, but to suggest Brahman is so infinite that one born of this world may not have the faculties to completely comprehend this. That said, one needs to become Brahman to really understand it in full.

Sivananda suggests that Isvara and Brahman are beyond the reach of the instrument of the mind and speech; that is full comprehension via the tools of speech and mind while in avidya is fruitless - figuratively speaking, ones head will fall off.


pranams and thank you for your post.

Hiwaunis
01 September 2007, 01:37 PM
Om Shirdi Sai Ram.
Namaste Hiwaunis.

The following is an extract from the book called "Shri Sai Satcharita".
The wonderful leelas(Miracles) of Shri Shirdi Sai Baba are mentioned in this book.


" Mr. Dabholkar was present on this occasion and he thought that this was the answer Baba gave to the question whether Guru was a necessity (Vide Sai Leela Vol. I, No.5, Page 47); and he thereupon took the hint that no discussion of the problem, whether man is free or bound, is of any use in spiritual matters, but that on the contrary real Paramartha is possible only as the result of the teachings of the Guru, as is illustrated in this chapter of the original work in the instances of great Avatars like Rama and Krishna, who had to submit themselves to their Gurus, Vasishtha and Sandipani respectively, for getting self- realization and that the only virtues necessary for such progress are faith and patience. (Vide Sai Satcharita, Ch. II, 191-92). "

Namaste Shirdi Sai Ram,
Is this relevant in this day and age. Not all of us have access to a Guru. I can't see our Divine Parent leaving us in this world Guru-less. According to this book we don't have a chance without a Guru.

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis

Znanna
01 September 2007, 04:04 PM
Namaste Shirdi Sai Ram,
Is this relevant in this day and age. Not all of us have access to a Guru. I can't see our Divine Parent leaving us in this world Guru-less. According to this book we don't have a chance without a Guru.

Om Shanti,
Hiwaunis


Namaste,


IMO, the notion of submission is what's important; 'tis easier to submit to Guru than Godz for some, perhaps?


ZN

sarabhanga
01 September 2007, 06:23 PM
Namaste Znanna,

Yes. Very simply, submission to a Guru is good practice for submission to God. Just as the worship of a divine image is good practice for worshipping the unimaginable Divinity. The Guru should not replace the God, but (just as those seeking nara always go via nArAyaNa) for those seeking God, the Guru is the true path, which (in the certain view of the devoted seeker) becomes entirely identified with the ultimate goal.