Gurus

[Liang Ch'an]

Namaste everyone,

I finished what is Hinduism, it is an excellent summary, thank you very much for the recommendation. I have started now into the Bhagavad Gita which is an amazing and I've been really struck even with the opening lines. But I wouldn't have been able to fully appreciate it without understanding the basic context. Thank you again for your friendship and sharing, its been very illuminating.

I have a few questions on Gurus in Hinduism. How does one achieve recognition as a guru? Is there a formal inheritance or passing of authority from a guru to a student of his lineage? In Buddhism there is dharma transmission where a master officially recognizes a student of being worthy of teaching and this lineage supposedly can always be traced back to the Buddha. In some places I have read that you can a non-physical guru, ie a spiritual presence or God be your guru directly. Can anyone elaborate on that? Do some Gurus then declare their authority directly from such a source rather than a previous guru?

Gurus also seem to be very very high esteem. In one description it even says that like God in human form to those that undertake his tutelage. In Tibetain traditions, there is a deep devotion to the guru as well and a near absolute submission to the Guru's guidance for ones path. In my own experience, there is an emphasis on a teacher being a companion in the journey who can show you the way but you must walk it and you alone are the authority in your understandings. What are you experiences with gurus?

I will be keeping all you in my meditations. aum namah shivaya - Liang

[devotee]

Namaste Liang,

I have a few questions on Gurus in Hinduism. How does one achieve recognition as a guru? Is there a formal inheritance or passing of authority from a guru to a student of his lineage? In Buddhism there is dharma transmission where a master officially recognizes a student of being worthy of teaching and this lineage supposedly can always be traced back to the Buddha. In some places I have read that you can a non-physical guru, ie a spiritual presence or God be your guru directly. Can anyone elaborate on that? Do some Gurus then declare their authority directly from such a source rather than a previous guru?

"Guru" is that who drives away the darkness of ignorance. This can be done by Only that who has come out of darkness Himself, i.e. only that person can be a Guru who has attained God-realisation (in duality) or Self-realisation (in Non-duality). Why is it so ? This is because the person claiming to lead me must know the "way" himself correctly ... otherwise how can he show me the way that he himself doesn't know ? Only that person who fulfills this criteria can be a Guru. Now, on Self-realisation a person becomes identified with Brahman or on God-realisation a person feels non-difference from God. So, such a Guru is the Self himself or God himself.Differentiating between God and Guru even a bit is considered a grave mistake. The scriptures say :

"GururBrahmA, GururVishnu, GururdevoMaheshwarah,
Gurureva Parbrahman, tasmai shree Gurawe namah !"

===> Guru is BrahmA, Guru is Vishnu and Guru himself is Maheshwara (Lord Shiva). Guru is Parbrahman alone. I bow to that Shree Guru !

Gurus also seem to be very very high esteem. In one description it even says that like God in human form to those that undertake his tutelage. In Tibetain traditions, there is a deep devotion to the guru as well and a near absolute submission to the Guru's guidance for ones path. In my own experience, there is an emphasis on a teacher being a companion in the journey who can show you the way but you must walk it and you alone are the authority in your understandings. What are you experiences with gurus?

We should not acquire Guru for our guidance in a hurry. The relationship between Guru and his disciple is an agreement of friendship for eternity. So, we must be careful when it comes to selecting our Guru. There are so many frauds claiming to be Gurus but they are merely slaves of flesh. They are themselves in darkness even though they may be expert in giving lectures on lofty ideas of VedAnta. If you ask my views on this I would say this :

a) It is extremely difficult to be a Guru without coming from a reputed lineage of Gurus. It is not impossible but it is certainly difficult. So, we must first check from what lineage of Guru order he come from.

b) Guru must be free from all attachments of worldly comforts and have no lust towards money,fame or anxiety for care/comforts of his body.

c) He must be at peace in all circumstances, at least, within himself.

d) He can be able to sit in position of meditation for long without any discomfort.

e) He should not strive for accumulating wealth for his own comforts.

f) There is no need that Guru should be in his physical body.

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste everyone,

I have a few questions on Gurus in Hinduism. How does one achieve recognition as a guru? Is there a formal inheritance or passing of authority from a guru to a student of his lineage? In Buddhism there is dharma transmission where a master officially recognizes a student of being worthy of teaching and this lineage supposedly can always be traced back to the Buddha. In some places I have read that you can a non-physical guru, ie a spiritual presence or God be your guru directly. Can anyone elaborate on that? Do some Gurus then declare their authority directly from such a source rather than a previous guru?

Gurus also seem to be very very high esteem. In one description it even says that like God in human form to those that undertake his tutelage. In Tibetain traditions, there is a deep devotion to the guru as well and a near absolute submission to the Guru's guidance for ones path. In my own experience, there is an emphasis on a teacher being a companion in the journey who can show you the way but you must walk it and you alone are the authority in your understandings. What are you experiences with gurus?

I will be keeping all you in my meditations. aum namah shivaya - Liang

Vannakkam: The tradition is to pass on the Guru power in a lineage. Self-proclaimed Gurus are generally suspect, although it does happen. In that case, the tradition is to have students asking you to teach them, and only then the Guru obliging, not just to start out teaching. So anyone at all who just assumes the role of teaching without any solicitation by a student is behaving on his own, outside of tradition.

A lot of people do choose non-physical Gurus, yes. I personally think it isn't wise because that direct contact via a phone call, or in person, just adds so much. A deceased Guru is a safe Guru because He can't tell you what to do. Much different if the Guru has become deceased during the teacher student time spent together.

Yes, the Guru is held in very high esteem, as God, and there are rituals associated with that, like pada puja, where, in worship, the Guru enters samadhi.

My Gurus are/were the publishers of the book you just finished, so both Subramuniyaswami and Bodhinatha are my Gurus. It's a very personal and direct relationship. With mass-market Gurus, because of the sheer number of devotees, the Guru most likely wouldn't have time for more personal teaching, and that 'tutorial' method is the highest, because its for you and you alone, taking your individual karma into consideration. Teachings from a book can't do that, not can deceased Gurus.

Aum Namasivaya

[Liang Ch'an]

So, such a Guru is the Self himself or God himself.Differentiating between God and Guru even a bit is considered a grave mistake. The scriptures say :

"GururBrahmA, GururVishnu, GururdevoMaheshwarah,
Gurureva Parbrahman, tasmai shree Gurawe namah !"

===> Guru is BrahmA, Guru is Vishnu and Guru himself is Maheshwara (Lord Shiva). Guru is Parbrahman alone. I bow to that Shree Guru !

Thanks for the helpful response. In some places I've seen where the writer says that Lord Ganesh or another diety is to be one's guru. Is this just meaning they be like a guru, or that one's living human guru is an extension of the god? Or can you have a diety or other spiritual presence as a guru? In Buddhism you can in theory claim authority from the Buddha (or one of the Buddhas) directly giving you his teachings. Of course the mainline lineages regard these people as fools at best.

If one studies under a guru who dies, what do they do? This must be common since gurus I would think would tend to be older and students younger. You said it's a eternal bond/commitment. In Tibetian Buddhism, it's the same that you acknowledge a guru across lifetimes. You even give a clipping of your hair in the ceremony of accepting a guru.

A guru is fully realized? So would they be considered Jivanmukta (liberated in this life)? Obviously not everyone who says they are a guru is one, but that would still be a considerable number of people at this high stage. If that is the case, then what happens when they die? Do they achieve moksha and not reincarnate? In Buddhism there are bodhisattvas or those who have achieved liberation but choose to reincarnate in order to help others.

Again thanks for the response and to eastern mind too. It is particularly helpful for me to be aware of avoiding ever using the label guru to describe myself, since I nowhere near claim to be what that entails. I have "dharma transmission" or the inheritance of my teachers lineage but again this is different than a guru.

Thanks, Liang

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Liang Ch'an]

P.S.

I stumbled across this quote from Alan Watts that describes the role of the teacher-student in Zen much better than I could do.
"In Zen, the master does not actually teach the student anything, but forces him to find out for himself. Furthermore he does not think of himself as a master, since it is only from the standpoint of the unawakened student that there are masters."
Not that this applies to Hinduism necessarily. But in Zen, the practice is one of letting go and not of attaining. Realizing the true nature that is already there. This can't be taught and is beyond lineages or authority. To say I am a zen (or ch'an in my case) master is not to say I am a special or more enlightened, like a guru would be. Rather just a recognition that I have the same True Nature that everyone else does and enlightenment is available to me at any moment; just as it is for any of us. So it is meaningless once you understand it. I love how the Bhagavad Gita talks about how even all the Vedas are like a resovior during a flood if you have released that all is Brahman. Again I'm just speaking about Zen and Zen masters not Hinduism or gurus. I don't mean to offend.

-Liang

[Eastern Mind]

If one studies under a guru who dies, what do they do? This must be common since gurus I would think would tend to be older and students younger. You said it's a eternal bond/commitment. In Tibetian Buddhism, it's the same that you acknowledge a guru across lifetimes. You even give a clipping of your hair in the ceremony of accepting a guru.

A guru is fully realized? So would they be considered Jivanmukta (liberated in this life)? Obviously not everyone who says they are a guru is one, but that would still be a considerable number of people at this high stage. If that is the case, then what happens when they die? Do they achieve moksha and not reincarnate? In Buddhism there are bodhisattvas or those who have achieved liberation but choose to reincarnate in order to help others.

Again thanks for the response and to eastern mind too. It is particularly helpful for me to be aware of avoiding ever using the label guru to describe myself, since I nowhere near claim to be what that entails. I have "dharma transmission" or the inheritance of my teachers lineage but again this is different than a guru.

Thanks, Liang

Aum Namah Shivaya

Vannakkam: There is some variance in the teaching, and I can only respond from my particular school's viewpoint.

When a Guru attains mahasamadhi, in most lineages the torch will have been passed to a successor. So the devotee has 3 choices ... live from what the deceased teacher taught, have the successor as the new Guru, or see both as Gurus. In my case it is choice 3.

For Gurus not clearly appointing successors, it often gets confusing with power struggles, decline of the organisation, and more. But it happens. I have no idea why, as it seems just unwise to me.

When an enlightened being attains mahasamadhi, moksha is the natural result, yes.

Aum Namasivaya

[devotee]

Namaste Liang,

In some places I've seen where the writer says that Lord Ganesh or another diety is to be one's guru. Is this just meaning they be like a guru, or that one's living human guru is an extension of the god? Or can you have a diety or other spiritual presence as a guru? In Buddhism you can in theory claim authority from the Buddha (or one of the Buddhas) directly giving you his teachings. Of course the mainline lineages regard these people as fools at best.

I would speak my views which are based on my tradition i.e. Advaita VedAnta. Actually Guru tatva (the essence that Guru is) is inherent in God and all Gurus draw their "Knowledge (of Reality)" from that Tatva alone. It is not that it is found only in a particular person or some chosen people. It is there all the time freely available to everyone as It is their (or everyone's) True Nature. It is just like the teachings of Zen Buddhism. Buddhism is not very different from Hindu Dharma and therefore most of the things that apply to Gurus in that tradition, apply here too.

Yes, one can take any form of God e.g. Lord Ganesha, Lord Shiva etc. too as Guru. There is no harm because ultimately we all are trying to access the same Reality for guidance. The paths can be different. However, that becomes a difficult path because for gaining guidance from Lord Shiva or Lord Vishnu directly, your spiritual vibrations must be very very advanced. Usually, when you do that, God makes you come across a Guru in human form to guide you properly. The human form of God is a special incarnation for the sole aim of guiding seekers to Realisation. Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu forms are not especially for acting as Gurus. So, interaction with them becomes difficult.

In spite of what I said above, Ramana Maharishi was a Self-reslised True Guru who never had a Guru. But such cases are very rare.

In fact, interacting with a Guru who has left his body is also slightly more difficult than interacting with "living" Guru and that is why I agree with EM on this account. But a True Guru never leaves you. He keeps trying to help you even when he might not be in flesh and blood.

If one studies under a guru who dies, what do they do? This must be common since gurus I would think would tend to be older and students younger. You said it's a eternal bond/commitment. In Tibetian Buddhism, it's the same that you acknowledge a guru across lifetimes. You even give a clipping of your hair in the ceremony of accepting a guru.

Teachings of Guru are already there which you are supposed to follow whether Guru is in body or not. This is what you are supposed to do as a disciple. Sometimes, you may need direct intervention from Guru. At that time you pray to Guru to help you.

A guru is fully realized? So would they be considered Jivanmukta (liberated in this life)? Obviously not everyone who says they are a guru is one, but that would still be a considerable number of people at this high stage. If that is the case, then what happens when they die? Do they achieve moksha and not reincarnate? In Buddhism there are bodhisattvas or those who have achieved liberation but choose to reincarnate in order to help others.

Of course, Guru must be a Jivanmukta or liberated soul otherwise how can he help me in getting liberation ?

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Just to clarify on deceased Gurus ... There is a big difference between knowing a Guru while he was living, and then carrying on with your personal sadhanas given by Him, and following His teachings, versus declaring that a deceased Guru that you never met personally is your Guru. One essential difference is that this relationship is a bond, like a marriage, and both parties have to agree to it. So in the former case, the Guru took you on as a devotee. You passed the requirements, whatever they were. In the second case, that just isn't possible, although in rare mystical cases it might happen in dreams.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

I stumbled across this quote from Alan Watts that describes the role of the teacher-student in Zen much better than I could do.
"In Zen, the master does not actually teach the student anything, but forces him to find out for himself. Furthermore he does not think of himself as a master, since it is only from the standpoint of the unawakened student that there are masters."
Not that this applies to Hinduism necessarily. But in Zen, the practice is one of letting go and not of attaining. Realizing the true nature that is already there. This can't be taught and is beyond lineages or authority. To say I am a zen (or ch'an in my case) master is not to say I am a special or more enlightened, like a guru would be. Rather just a recognition that I have the same True Nature that everyone else does and enlightenment is available to me at any moment; just as it is for any of us. So it is meaningless once you understand it. I love how the Bhagavad Gita talks about how even all the Vedas are like a resovior during a flood if you have released that all is Brahman. Again I'm just speaking about Zen and Zen masters not Hinduism or gurus. I don't mean to offend.

Not to take Alan's thunder away, but when I read some of the things quoted, I am at a loss to understand what is it that he is saying. For example, a student teacher relationship exists because of the ignorance of the student and the knowledge of the teacher. Similarly a Master and Devotee relationship exists simply because the devotee/student is Unawakened and the Master is awakened.

Then there is the claim that in Zen the Master does not teach the student anything but forces him to find out for himself. The master has to steer the student in the right direction or stand him at the start of the right path or do something to influence the newbie; otherwise, why do I need to associate with him? If I have the required yearning to learn, I might as well stay home and find it all myself without being forced into it.

The Master IS special because of his ability to recognize the true nature of things. There is always a gradation on the path of learning. A learned/educated/trained person who has attained a certain vision, be it academic or spiritual, is higher than a beginner. Just saying that they are both equal does not make it so.

All these contradictions might be because I am not enlightened enough to see things the way others may see and I look forward to being guided to the true meaning of what Alan is saying.

Pranam.

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Namaste,

The important starting point is always good association, from this we learn the qualities of how to appreciate the teachings. I just read recently that if one finds good association then they are already in the liberated position, meaning everything will come naturally in its own time. As it has been said guru is one who dispels and takes away darkness or ignorance and delivers light or knowledge ( not of the theoretical style). So guru will come in various ways, as per my understanding all are aspect of paramatma or antariyami the indwelling spirit. The more concentrated form of this is manifest in a person, ones own guru, and he is to be seen as non different from paramatma in concentrated form, different traditions vary slightly bt most will see there param or supreme guru as non different from the Absolute Truth, this is where Hind Dharma and Buddha Dharma are different in culture, but not divorced totally, thats another subject.

Its not a self reliance or weakness, there is power in the devotion and for self dependency I think the word Upanishads helps shed some light on the balance between devotion to the guru and ones own self realization. Others here are far better in the etymology and deeper understanding of Sanskrit than me, but two ways of translating Upanishads is 1. Sitting next to the teacher or Guru, Rishi or Muni etc and he then teaches the meaning of Upanishads which is to sit on ones own seat or asana which is consciousness itself without supports, what the actual experience is then is beyond mind, body, intellect and senses.