One thing
he said struck me and I thought I’d repeat it. He said, “In the six thousand year history of
Hindu spirituality, there does not exist even one line that advocated not
having a guru. That is, the guru/student
relationship was central to spiritual transmission.
I would add that this is also true of the 2,500
year history of Buddhism, from the original Theravadin quest for Arhathood, to
all the schools that emphasized emptiness, to Zen. The teacher/student relationship was central
to the transmission of wisdom.
Swami made this statement because of all the
contemporary massive movement and disparagement of the guru/student relationship
by the neo-Advaitins and the anti-authoritarian movements in society where
there is such distrust of authority because of the corruption in both government
and industry such that few can really surrender to a teacher or even another
human. Such fear. Westerners are totally
frightened of this kind of surrender and love.
Others were so burned by love of the guru or
another that they run far away and begin preaching to all that no guru is
needed, just look to oneself. They forget
to mention that they came to the Self through love of a guru.
With a teacher I felt real devotion for, I would say I made a hundred times more "progress" than on my own. There is so much going on deep below the surface of the mind, a diffusion, transmission, soaking up of their essence... it's like being held and the necessary things just happen to you and flow so easily.
ReplyDeleteWith all respect to you and Chetananda, I suspect the guru/disciple relationship evolved as an intrinsic element of those societies. How far into that 6000 years did it take before those cultures were familiar enough with the process & expectations on both sides of the relationship, that they could trust it without a second thought? (Is it even a good idea to trust it without a second thought?) You can’t just import the current result of that evolution and gene-splice it into our culture, and expect it to bear fruit without any problems.
ReplyDeleteAnd hasn’t that evolutionary development resulted in many permutations of the guru/disciple relationship? What aspects of it stand out as true and effective for a majority of cases, and what is idiosyncratic to individual teachers, yet perhaps still effective in that specific case? What is aberrant or ineffective? You often point out that there is not a single definitive experience of “realization” or “awakening”. I imagine the same is true of guru/disciple relationships as well. Mismatched expectations or misunderstandings seem more likely to occur than not, for Western gurus and disciples alike.
Also, there have been enough shenanigans & betrayals of trust experienced by Western students in the much shorter history of Western gurus, so we don't have to go looking into government or corporate behavior as justifications of anyone's unease & distrust about it. You say “Such fear. Westerners are totally frightened of this kind of surrender and love.” But not without solid experiential cause, Da Sociopathananda being a prime example. How many betrayals of trust by a guru would be an acceptable number before you’d say the caution is justifiable? How many times does it take for a cat to be kicked by a few humans, before it is justified in distrusting all humans? If a teacher never acknowledges their own shadow, how can the student be required to perform that feat, and then be blamed if they fail to do it?
When the relationship fails, the blame is almost always placed solely back on the student, the teacher rarely if ever acknowledging any role in it. This is reinforced by the inherent power dynamics of the relationship, with the guru being the one with God on his side. Oh, the student didn’t surrender to the guru to a sufficient degree for it to be effective. Oh the student has too much fear! Well, that seems like a not unreasonable response to my experience in the world. Should I not trust that? Whose experience should I trust instead, and why? More than anything, this kind of pronouncement just undermines trust in my own discernment and ability to choose a teacher. If I’m chided for making decisions based on my own experiences, including the negative ones, how can I get to a point of surrendering the fear and trusting the teacher?
spot on jeff. what about the guru's experience is more valuable than your own? why put your own life secondary? we're all of the same cloth: dis-empowering yourself by giving up to or making another life over yours of primary importance seems to undermine the very principle of self-realization.
ReplyDelete" this kind of pronouncement just undermines trust in my own discernment and ability to choose a teacher. If I’m chided for making decisions based on my own experiences, including the negative ones, how can I get to a point of surrendering the fear and trusting the teacher?"
A guru is not more valuable than you; you are the same. But a guru knows the Self, the Self you can not now even dream of. You think your self consists of the little voices in your head, your body and emotions. That is not nearly all of you. Just the tip.
ReplyDeleteBut it is so hard to find the divine Self within, because it does not reveal itself to the casual looker. It reveals itself to a lover, a lover of the deeper realms within you, the energetic body, and most importantly, Atman, or the God within, AKA as Krishna or Christ Consciousness.
It is so easy to talk big by someone who just hates dependence, but you can't even leanr to play tennis or golf well without a teacher, let alone find the divine within.
A guru is not more valuable than you; you are the same. But a guru knows the Self, the Self you can not now even dream of. You think your self consists of the little voices in your head, your body and emotions. That is not nearly all of you. Just the tip.
ReplyDeleteBut it is so hard to find the divine Self within, because it does not reveal itself to the casual looker. It reveals itself to a lover, a lover of the deeper realms within you, the energetic body, and most importantly, Atman, or the God within, AKA as Krishna or Christ Consciousness.
It is so easy to talk big by someone who just hates dependence, but you can't even leanr to play tennis or golf well without a teacher, let alone find the divine within.
Ed, I know my questions seem rhetorical, and definitely they reveal my own bias and fears, but I really was hoping to know your answers. For my part, I was trying to deepen the conversation by asking them--it seems to me that there’s much more beneath the surface level ideas you tossed out in your original post. And since you seem to be finding your own way through the guru/student maze rather than following strictly out of the rulebook, I thought you might have more to say on the subject. But then I ask myself, would any answer be enough to move me beyond the fear to commitment?
ReplyDeleteI look around for the other cats who were here when I first came to your early feedings on this blog, and unless I’m mistaken, I just don’t see any of them here anymore. Me? I’m the dark gray tom with the tattered ear and missing tail, who sticks to the shadows and doesn’t approach the tuna can until you set it down and back off 20 yards. Sometimes I wish I was the kind of bhakta cat who could live in your house and sit purring on your chest like Lakshmi. But then I take a lucid look at my life and think it’s just not gonna be that way. I’m not interested in a big dramatic blowup and departure—I mostly enjoy it here, I appreciate the feedings and am a much stronger and healthier cat than when I first came around—but the godawful truth is, I can’t seem to make myself step through the ashram door, from the dark night into the apparent warmth and light. Just being honest with you and myself.
Beautifully said, Edji.
ReplyDeleteOnly he who wants to learn needs a teacher. A guru just accepts, but doesn't impose himself. If one wants to hang on to his ego and ignorance, why not?
- Janardana