Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Gurus

  1. #11

    Re: Gurus

    Quote Originally Posted by Believer View Post
    Namaste,


    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.
    Believer, hmmm... I am no Alan Watts by a long shot. (I think I will read some of the stuff he wrote on Hinduism when I get the chance). Zen is always "talking out both sides of the mouth" which is to use contradictions to point to non-dual/indiscribable truth. So my interpretions are definitely not complete. I think the truth is that the master is both special and not special. In the famous heart sutra, the path of enlightenment is described as a pathless path. It is something you gain understanding and wisdom in but yet has no gaining or diminishing. My teacher said that the precepts (I believe they are the same or similar in Hinduism) are my own and it wasn't his or anyone else's job how to live them. I am also responsible for my own practice. The scriptures say to rely on yourself and your own verification of the truth of teachings. Yet, it was always encouraged to have a teacher and to be in community. Lineages are carefully traced all the way back to the Buddha (supposedly). How are all these things held together and true at the same time? I don't think there is a way to define it. But at least I would say that Buddhist teachers (outside of the Tibetans who have gurus) have not usually reached full enlightenment. More they are just authorized to pass on the teachings and are recognized to have enough wisdom to tailor it slightly if needed. Does that make any sense?

  2. #12

    Re: Gurus

    Believer,

    Also thought I should add that to be honest I'm not entirely sure what it means to be a zen master, especially now that I'm technically one (though definitely do not feel it). Most of the masters I know cringe away from the title and are also very iconoclast about it. Currently, I also have no students nor am seeking any. So am I really a master then?
    It is this tension that has led me to study deeper into the roots of the dharma. I have deeply appreciated the help from everyone.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    The Holy Land - Bharat
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    5499

    Re: Gurus

    Namaste Liang,

    Thanks for taking the time to express your views. Unfortunately, I am a simple minded country boy who gets easily confused by contradicting statements and play on words. I find your assessment that the Buddhist teachers usually have not reached full enlightenment and are just authorized to pass on the teachings to be in line with the commonly held view. I believe that is true for Hinduism too where a lot of mumbo jumbo is thrown around using Sanskrit words to impress and persuade others about the authenticity of the message. But such people have a definite role to play in keeping the traditions and teachings alive in the hope that some may take the leap and bet it all to ride higher. Not all of us are meant to or really have the desire to forgo the material attachments in order to progress on the spiritual path.

    Regarding everyone finding the truth on their own and being responsible for their own practice, there has to be some guidance involved. If not, why would they encourage association and a teacher? And we are not supposed to stray far from the original teachings; otherwise what is the point of tracing the lineage; which is done mainly to ensure that the message has not been diluted or altered and which implies that the successive masters/gurus have followed the traditional path and not come up with their own version based on their experiences.

    A person who goes through the med school is called a doctor whether he chooses to practice medicine or follow in the footsteps of Ron/Rand Paul or Howard Dean . A person who has completed the requirements of mastering and being able to articulate the Buddhist teachings is a Zen master even though he may not have had any realizations or enlightenment or be a formal teacher to anyone . The definition means that the person is an authorized agent to pass on the teachings, with or without verifying/experiencing them himself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGiH6oUDXVg

    Pranam.
    Last edited by Believer; 01 February 2016 at 08:07 AM.

  4. #14

    Re: Gurus

    Namaste Liang,

    Alan Watts is quite an interesting character, he speaks highly of Hinduism and Sanskrit, I think he finally found his place though amongst certain zen eccentrics, not by realization but probably more to do with not wanting to be that disciplned in his lifestyle. I like the way he says that he is not a guru, only an entertainer, I doubt many Hindus will get much from him that is not already embedded in their own culture. For westerners he is a good introduction to the basic concepts, and he leaves things open for listeners to work out for themselves.

    Guru is a very deep topic, its best to learn via a tradition as Guru can never really be stereotyped, looking for guru as being something in particular will be a bit confusing, as teachers vary so vastly and talk to different people who are receptive to that particular type of teaching.

    When ever I get a chance its always nice to share and re read this

    http://www.swamij.com/twenty-four-gurus.htm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gurus
    By catnip in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15 May 2013, 03:07 AM
  2. Anybody should take the living gurus
    By orlando in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18 January 2013, 11:38 AM
  3. India's TV Gurus
    By R Gitananda in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11 November 2012, 01:21 AM
  4. Suspicious of gurus
    By Rudy in forum On Dharma
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27 July 2011, 01:05 PM
  5. Online gurus?
    By Ao in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 July 2010, 07:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •