Ever had a Guru ?

[Bandit]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[wil]

Jesus is my guru.

 

[citizenzen]

Earlier, I said life was mine, but apparently that doesn't qualify.

 

[Bandit]

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.

I could never see you having a guru anytime soon. You argue too much. To continue in doubt is not learning or growing, that is being afraid to learn or grow, When one thinks they already know more than the guru that they question them, then you don't have a guru...what you have is someone you doubt. Nothing wrong with that, but you still need to distinguish the difference.

 

[Bandit]

Jesus is my guru.

You picked the best one. IMO - No need to doubt or question it either.

 

[Bandit]

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.

I did not have to search, they came to me
But yah, searching to fill a void is not a good approach. That could get one into trouble.

 

[Bandit]

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

No one said you can't ask the guru questions. It is questioning the gurus answers as valid or correct that makes them not your guru.

 

[citizenzen]

I could never see you having a guru anytime soon. You argue too much. To continue in doubt is not learning or growing, that is being afraid to learn or grow, When one thinks they already know more than the guru that they question them, then you don't have a guru...what you have is someone you doubt. Nothing wrong with that, but you still need to distinguish the difference.

Funny. I was told by my zen teacher that one must work through doubt to achieve enlightenment.

Maybe she was wrong.

Whoops! More doubt!

 

[Bandit]

Funny. I was told by my zen teacher that one must work through doubt to achieve enlightenment.

Maybe she was wrong.

Whoops! More doubt!

Your teacher is obviously not my teacher because I disagree. Go ahead & work through your doubt until the cows come home and then you might get enlightenment.

 

[citizenzen]

Your teacher is obviously not my teacher because I disagree. Go ahead & work through your doubt until the cows come home and then you might get enlightenment.

Peace and wisdom in your life as well.

(And you said I was argumentative.)

 

[Bandit]

ever had one of those, what was it like ?

If I can be of further assistance in sharing my experience as I feel you are going through the same thing with your guru as I have, feel free to PM me. We might learn some things by sharing in a quiet place.