Ever had a Guru ?

[Netti-Netti]

A good teacher makes someone uncomfortable....

In my own experience, a good teacher makes someone comfortable with their doubts to where they can study those doubts and get a better understanding of what they're about. Diffusing the doubts helps the person get better oriented and able to see the situation for what it is.

A teacher should not, in my opinion, resonate (not) because the person is what you want them to be, but rather because the person awakens potential and growth in you.

The difference becomes more understandable over time. Like other relationships, even a carefully planned student/teacher relationship will have a life of its own, shaped by unpredictable qualities arising from the personalities involved. Conscious decisions may actually not factor into it very much, especially for a student who is not clear on the goals to begin with (and for whom they may not be understandable for some time).

Deeply spiritual teachers may have a great deal of power, but they will have risen above the desire to throw it around or use it to control others, and they will not ask you to admire them as much as to investigate yourself.

Again, I suspect this becomes clear only in hindsight. It's hard to know whether someone's antics are self-serving or purposeful with respect to important goals.

A quick thought: Unless a present day teacher is a Vedic scholar and the interaction is focused on passing on the Vedas and learning the memory techniques, the relationship wouldn't even resemble a traditional Guru-shishya relationship by which the Vedic oral tradition was preserved for hundreds of years.

Anyone in the West who would call him/herself a "Guru" would need to be aware that by joking around with the title, they risk making it essentially meaningless by simply ignoring the origins in a very specific tradition. Same is true for anyone who calls a teacher "guru."

The Western idea of Guru is someone you sign up with in order to get a crash course in enlightenment -i.e., someone with occult or esoteric knowledge to impart. This strikes me as artificial.

It's very artificial. It's also out of touch with the historic tradition. The guruparampara lineage involves a transmission of Vedic knowledge from one guru to the next. That's how the original Guru-shishya relationship was intended. To be faithful to that concept, you'd study with a Guru if you were planning to become a Guru yourself, and then you'd be able to pass Veda on to someone one else.

 

[path_of_one]

In my own experience, a good teacher makes someone comfortable with their doubts to where they can study those doubts and get a better understanding of what they're about. Diffusing the doubts helps the person get better oriented and able to see the situation for what it is.

I can see that. But I also think that a good teacher sometimes pushes the buttons to cause doubt. We need doubt as a starting point in the process. Some people need more comfort and assurance so they can handle doubt they already have. Other people aren't even to the point where they've awakened to doubt yet.

I guess I'd say that a good teacher makes you feel safe, but that doesn't mean you're comfortable.

The difference becomes more understandable over time. Like other relationships, even a carefully planned student/teacher relationship will have a life of its own, shaped by unpredictable qualities arising from the personalities involved. Conscious decisions may actually not factor into it very much, especially for a student who is not clear on the goals to begin with (and for whom they may not be understandable for some time).

Yep.

Again, I suspect this becomes clear only in hindsight. It's hard to know whether someone's antics are self-serving or purposeful with respect to important goals.

I don't find it that difficult to discern the difference, but maybe that is just me. I sense these things. But in some cases, it seems very clear to anyone who is not already very gullible. If someone is demanding you to turn your back on your family and friends and turn over all the contents of your wallet... chances are the antics are self-serving. There's just a lot of spirituality in all religions in the US that boils down to a money-making machine for someone, often combined with making the leader feel powerful, special, or whatever. Reasonable financial support of someone for doing a good job at guiding people spiritually is, well, reasonable. But some are not so reasonable.

 

[wil]

It's also out of touch with the historic tradition. The guruparampara lineage involves a transmission of Vedic knowledge from one guru to the next. That's how the original Guru-shishya relationship was intended. To be faithful to that concept, you'd study with a Guru if you were planning to become a Guru yourself, and then you'd be able to pass Veda on to someone one else.

Namaste NN,

According to the tradition above, does one guru only pass on information or develop any new insight?

Any thoughts on guru moments? ie. it seems occasionally I find a temporary guru, a momentary guru, when someone provides insiane connection of thought which assists me to connect the dots.

Which leads me to the quiestion, in truth is everyone a guru and is it us that need to see/hear/understand (those with ears)?

 

[seattlegal]

In my own experience, a good teacher makes someone comfortable with their doubts to where they can study those doubts and get a better understanding of what they're about. Diffusing the doubts helps the person get better oriented and able to see the situation for what it is.

The difference becomes more understandable over time. Like other relationships, even a carefully planned student/teacher relationship will have a life of its own, shaped by unpredictable qualities arising from the personalities involved. Conscious decisions may actually not factor into it very much, especially for a student who is not clear on the goals to begin with (and for whom they may not be understandable for some time).

Again, I suspect this becomes clear only in hindsight. It's hard to know whether someone's antics are self-serving or purposeful with respect to important goals.

Regarding the use of antics: antics can have a multi-fold function:

• antics help to hold the attention of those who are not awakened, but are open. It can serve as a time-release mechanism to deliver the message when the person is ready to understand it. In this case, they will see it in hindsight.
• Antics will invite those who are more awakened to look more deeply for the lesson--which is a good habit to cultivate.
• The right antics can help to develop mudita, aka sympathetic joy, (one of the sublime states,) which is helpful in counteracting things like jealousy.
• antics can basically help to screen out idolators who are not willing to look deeply.
• antics can help to develop discernment
• antics help to develop acceptance of other views, including your own doubts.

See also 1 Corinthians 1

 

[Netti-Netti]

Wil,

According to the tradition above, does one guru only pass on information or develop any new insight?

The Vedas were mainly hymns and liturgical recitations for use at ceremonies. Not sure how much room there was to get creative. It's not totally clear since it was after all an oral tradition going back to 2000 BC. A lot of the later written texts that contained the original oral material were lost.

Any thoughts on guru moments? ie. it seems occasionally I find a temporary guru, a momentary guru, when someone provides insane connection of thought which assists me to connect the dots.

I'd say that's more of a illumination/spiritual guide function. The Vedas were handed down by the priestly class (Brahminic gurus) whose interaction with others was largely limited to ceremonial functions and administrative functions (as court officials who advised kings or as actual leaders). I've haven't seen much info about the extent they were a resource to help people out with spiritual matters or life questions.

Which leads me to the question, in truth is everyone a guru and is it us that need to see/hear/understand (those with ears)?

Someone suggested that if they were rejecting things the teacher was teaching, it was because it wasn't the right teacher. It sounds like you'd say the student isn't ready to learn. I can see that.

In OT Hebrew the same word is used for "hear" and "obey." Maybe we're not prepared to hear because we don't want to change our lives in a way that reflects a genuine acceptance/integration of the guidance received.

 

[Hermano Luis]

Gurus are important in our spiritual life, but they do not impose their will on their students. Most of the Gurus that I have encountered have been humble people who have rejected all types of religious titles, including the title of Guru.

Each Guru is unique. Each of them teaches in very special ways... even through silence.

I have know my Guru for a long time. He has led me quietly to different teachers, places, and situations with the pupose of growing spiritually, but when things are not going right I can feel His strong presence breaking the barriers of time and space.

When I met my Guru, I knew that there was something special between Him and I. That was a long time ago. Nevertheless His presence is still with me. You do not have to look for the Guru, the Guru will find you where ever you are.

Hermano Luis

 

[Bandit]

Gurus are important in our spiritual life, but they do not impose their will on their students. Most of the Gurus that I have encountered have been humble people who have rejected all types of religious titles, including the title of Guru.

Each Guru is unique. Each of them teaches in very special ways... even through silence.

I have know my Guru for a long time. He has led me quietly to different teachers, places, and situations with the pupose of growing spiritually, but when things are not going right I can feel His strong presence breaking the barriers of time and space.

When I met my Guru, I knew that there was something special between Him and I. That was a long time ago. Nevertheless His presence is still with me. You do not have to look for the Guru, the Guru will find you where ever you are.

Hermano Luis

Beautiful.

They have a specific line of teaching and a unique way of awakening the student to it. There will be no doubt in the relationship and you wont have to look for them. You have the real thing, Hermano Luis.

 

[Netti-Netti]

A skilled teacher will use the student's resistance in a way that advances the goals of the relationship. The teacher will honor it and help the student use it effectively. In terms of the student's actual learning, doubt and nonacceptance can be helpful because they reveal much about areas that needs work. They can reveal why the student is attached to unhealthy habits and unwilling to change, interpersonal dynamics, etc.

Just because doubt and nonacceptance are brought into focus, that doesn't mean they'll cease to be an issue. They will probably need repeated rechecking. However, just knowing that doubt and nonacceptance are permissible can help a student avoid further complications related to misguided efforts to push these sentiments away. These things can be seen as part of the evolving relationship.

The teacher's handling of the issues can increase the student's respect and gratitude toward the teacher and strengthen the bond. Moments of doubt or nonacceptance can be an opportunity for the teacher to convey steadfast love, demonstrating that the relationship is not dependent on blind faith and that it has an enduring integrity of its own. Also, the teacher can clarify that the student is not expected to accept everything about the teacher at face value. This can be helpful to a student who does not fully understand that the relationship is in their interest.

Doubt and nonacceptance may indicate that the student is holding a teacher to some absolute standard or stereotyped idea of what a teacher should be like. This can directly interfere with the evolution of the relationship because the student can get caught up in expecting the teacher to match that stereotyped and then trying to make sense of the fact that there seems to be a mismatch. It's totally possible in the scheme of things that this apparent mismatch will prove important to the student's learning.

It is very hard to tell at what point doubt/nonacceptance cease to be functional. You never know if you don't let it happen and let take it its course instead of jumping the gun and trying to beat a nonexistent inevitable to the punch.

In a transformational relationship, the Gift of Transmission may actually have very little to do with a specific teaching. Points of contention about specific teachings will therefore seem trivial. If the student gets too hung up on trivia, this can slow the evolving relationship down. However, there is no doubt in my mind that a relationship this important will continue to evolve even if the person wasn't ready for it before.

 

[path_of_one]

That's a very interesting post, Netti. Lots to think about there...

I can actually see quite a bit of parallelism to a good academic mentor, too. While I have had excellent academic mentors, I have not ever found (yet) a spiritual teacher that is guru-esque. I believe I learn from every living being, and I guess I would view Jesus and Gaia as my gurus. They are the only beings I regularly communicate with that have been transformative in my life. There is one particular spirit who I occasionally communicate with and has stuff to share, but I wouldn't call him a guru as the relationship, though definitively teacher-student, is not that deep or constant. There are contemporary people I feel could be gurus for me, but they are inaccessible given distance, time, etc. Haven't ever found a close one.

I have a mentor in Druidry, but they are generally modeled differently. A mentor is not a guide or teacher as much as a facilitator, and again, it's not relationship that is so constant. When I think of a deep teacher-student relationship, I think of my academic mentors in which there is a very substantial time commitment over the course of years as one develops.

I think it would be nifty to have a teacher that would be so profound from whom to learn, but so far I just haven't personally met any. I'd also always be wary at first, because I have seen how people can be taken advantage of in the guru-disciple relationship. Personality cults abound. I tend to figure when there is danger, use caution. But I have no doubt that there are surely some people somewhere who are excellent spiritual teachers.

 

[Snoopy]

Isn’t “guru” simply a word for teacher, in its widest sense? We’ve all had teachers through our lives I think, or is the OP meaning a guru only in the formal sense, with a capital G?

I think much of this thread so far revolves around issues of authority and deference to authority. Sure, the term “guru” has to some degree been downgraded or tainted in the west; because of its pilfering by the secular world for anyone with a degree of knowledge in a subject and by stories of religious charlatans. But in the west there has been a gradual erosion of deference to authority, in all spheres. So any failure to defer to the wisdom of a religious “authority” is no different in this regard to any other expression of this failure. The (judgment of the) individual has been put on a pedestal, for better or worse.

I’m reminded of the first story in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: A Cup of Tea.

Nan-in, a Japanese master, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself.
“It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

Also I think there has been alluded to on this thread the notion of life being a guru. I’d been thinking about all things, all people being a potential teacher. Whether or not we learn anything may of course be up to us. I’d been thinking about the idea that the people we come across in our lives may be potential bodhisattvas for us. Maybe the people we like the most, agree with the most have the least to teach us. Conversely, the people we dislike the most, disagree with the most have the most to teach us. I don’t mean necessarily in terms of what they specifically say but in offering the opportunity for us to learn a little more about ourselves, by our reaction to them. For example, if someone makes us angry they are showing us how far we still have to go in dealing with this. Hence, maybe they are an (unwitting?) bodhisattva (for us).

Yesterday, for instance, when I got out of my car on a car park, someone shouted aggressively at me (I had missed a road sign). If I had matched their emotional temperature who would that have helped? It could only have escalated, benefiting no-one. In that moment I had a choice as to how to respond, so perhaps for me, he was a bodhisattva (or guru)?

s.

 

[nativeastral]

Isn’t “guru” simply a word for teacher, in its widest sense? We’ve all had teachers through our lives I think, or is the OP meaning a guru only in the formal sense, with a capital G?

I think much of this thread so far revolves around issues of authority and deference to authority. Sure, the term “guru” has to some degree been downgraded or tainted in the west; because of its pilfering by the secular world for anyone with a degree of knowledge in a subject and by stories of religious charlatans. But in the west there has been a gradual erosion of deference to authority, in all spheres. So any failure to defer to the wisdom of a religious “authority” is no different in this regard to any other expression of this failure. The (judgment of the) individual has been put on a pedestal, for better or worse.

I’m reminded of the first story in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: A Cup of Tea.

Nan-in, a Japanese master, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself.
“It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

Also I think there has been alluded to on this thread the notion of life being a guru. I’d been thinking about all things, all people being a potential teacher. Whether or not we learn anything may of course be up to us. I’d been thinking about the idea that the people we come across in our lives may be potential bodhisattvas for us. Maybe the people we like the most, agree with the most have the least to teach us. Conversely, the people we dislike the most, disagree with the most have the most to teach us. I don’t mean necessarily in terms of what they specifically say but in offering the opportunity for us to learn a little more about ourselves, by our reaction to them. For example, if someone makes us angry they are showing us how far we still have to go in dealing with this. Hence, maybe they are an (unwitting?) bodhisattva (for us).

Yesterday, for instance, when I got out of my car on a car park, someone shouted aggressively at me (I had missed a road sign). If I had matched their emotional temperature who would that have helped? It could only have escalated, benefiting no-one. In that moment I had a choice as to how to respond, so perhaps for me, he was a bodhisattva (or guru)?

s.

works both ways! its whether you pick it up or are still coming from ego.
antipathy shows shadow work

 

[Snoopy]

works both ways! its whether you pick it up or are still coming from ego.

Indeed!

shadow work

Jungian? Feel free to summarise!

s.

 

[nativeastral]

the unconscious parts of the personality [shadow side of the ego both of which have positive/negative aspects/strengths] if unacknowledged then 'projected' back at you in encounters [ie issues/enemies]. can be collective too [klu klux], and usually with same sex [man and his symbols c.g.jung]
So gurus are there to push those buttons, yikes

 

[Netti-Netti]

I can see that. But I also think that a good teacher sometimes pushes the buttons to cause doubt. We need doubt as a starting point in the process. Some people need more comfort and assurance so they can handle doubt they already have. Other people aren't even to the point where they've awakened to doubt yet.

Yes, there are individual differences and the 'doubt technique' would prolly work with some students, but not with others. Temperaments and tolerances for dissonance vary.

Regarding the use of antics: antics can have a multi-fold function:

• antics help to hold the attention of those who are not awakened, but are open. It can serve as a time-release mechanism to deliver the message when the person is ready to understand it. In this case, they will see it in hindsight.
• Antics will invite those who are more awakened to look more deeply for the lesson--which is a good habit to cultivate.
• The right antics can help to develop mudita, aka sympathetic joy, (one of the sublime states,) which is helpful in counteracting things like jealousy.
• antics can basically help to screen out idolators who are not willing to look deeply.
• antics can help to develop discernment
• antics help to develop acceptance of other views, including your own doubts.

I can see that these could be effective depending on how it's done and the context and who the students are. I am reminded of a minister who'd do things like throw the Bible on the floor at a study group. I guess the point was that the teachings are independent of the text. (It freaked people out.) He'd also do unexpected confrontations at social gatherings. Many of his actions were "gestures" that were supposed to be meaningful, but somehow were not much more drama nonsense. I think that minister pretty much destroyed that church with his antics.

 

[nativeastral]

reminds me of gurdijeff

G. I. Gurdjieff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[citizenzen]

I've seen within myself that when we react negatively to something it is because that very same negative quality is in us.

I must possess arrogance to be indignant over arrogance.

I must possess anger to be affronted by the angry.

It would take an eternity to remove these things from the world.

It can take an instant to I remove them from myself.*




*Or more likely, a 100,000 lifetimes.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Maybe the people we like the most, agree with the most have the least to teach us. Conversely, the people we dislike the most, disagree with the most have the most to teach us.

Could be. On the other hand, whether we like the person may be irrelevant.

I thought we'd compare Western notions of what gurus are like with how they appear in an indigenous culture. In Bengal there is a dominant Bhakti religious culture in the form Vaishnavism, which has been "an ancient feature of the religious thought of Bengal and is perhaps the strongest element in the spiritual beliefs of the people irrespective of community."
http://www.webindia123.com/westbengal/people/religion.htm

It appears a Bengal guru's status is socially ascribed and actually has nothing to do with guru's qualifications or character. The researcher mentions someone receiving initiation from a guru "she had been recommended without even knowing his name!" The author goes on: "In these cases clearly what is important is to have a guru who is respected by others who are important to oneself."

In Bengal a guru functions in a prescribed social role by virtue of a lineage that may be familial/hereditary. A guru's charisma and ability to inspire are totally irrelevant, as is his/her actual ability (p. 135). The idea of shopping around for "the right guru" is generally a nonissue.
https://oa.doria.fi/dspace/bitstream/10024/4128/1/TMP.objres.76.pdf

 

[Bandit]

Maybe the people we like the most, agree with the most have the least to teach us. Conversely, the people we dislike the most, disagree with the most have the most to teach us. I don’t mean necessarily in terms of what they specifically say but in offering the opportunity for us to learn a little more about ourselves, by our reaction to them. For example, if someone makes us angry they are showing us how far we still have to go in dealing with this. Hence, maybe they are an (unwitting?) bodhisattva (for us).

I have learned far more from people who I like than from people I don't like...and there are more people who I don't like or trust than there are who I like and trust and I plan on keeping it that way.

You will be drawn to your guru in a good way, not a bad way. One should still proceed with caution in the beginning and along the way. People who deliberately try to piss people off & make them angry are not gurus. They are problem makers and unwise. Though you might be right for instance if someone enjoys negative type environments, controlling or being controlled they would enjoy a people who they can argue with all the time or be caught in a state of bondage...because they see people who argue or are controlling all the time as something positive. I would not view that as a teacher/student though, or equality, rather one or both persons who like to argue and cause problems for people with an overinflated ego. Deliberate opposition can also act as a boomerang and bring unaware harm to those doing the opposing. In relation to that negative environment they would use something like a, sword sharpens sword cliche, in which I found (especially in religion/politics dialog) to be a midsomer murder, rather than a guru session.

Anger can be a good thing too. I do think it is very important to be able to distinguish the difference between someone upsetting you deliberately, someone else doing it unknowingly, and there are times when we should be upset for a valid reason. Upsetting people often when face to face, is no guru. Even the subtle violence with words that may go undetected by most, still does not make a good environment for a guru/student. And I can't help but notice that people who talk the most, know the least.

Yesterday, for instance, when I got out of my car on a car park, someone shouted aggressively at me (I had missed a road sign). If I had matched their emotional temperature who would that have helped? It could only have escalated, benefiting no-one. In that moment I had a choice as to how to respond, so perhaps for me, he was a bodhisattva (or guru)?

s.

That alone doesnt make someone a guru either. That is a stranger who was upset because you ran through/ignored a road sign because you could have hurt someone by not paying attention. If that same person had given you a ticket for it with the same aggression, it still would not be a guru, it would be a cop enforcing the law

It appears to me that some people are complicating what a guru really is and most likely to a lack of ever having or trusting one fully & completely. I can be sitting in the same room with somene I know very well and that person get absolutely nothing from my guru, while I am learning quite an abundance. In my experience a good attribute that should shine for any guru or student is, an equal amount of quiet moments with observing as there is Q&A.

So gurus are there to push those buttons, yikes

A guru might make you aware of those buttons, but they wont be the ones deliberately pushing them.

the unconscious parts of the personality [shadow side of the ego both of which have positive/negative aspects/strengths] if unacknowledged then 'projected' back at you in encounters [ie issues/enemies].

Just something I have learned recently about positive & negative. What one person views as positive another views as negative. There are times when we want figures in the red and other times we don't. I think pessimistic/optimisitic is over rated, especially when you hear someone charge someone as being one or the other without knowing why. Pessimism when used properly can be both, a very positive thing or a negative thing. Both positive and negative have strengths and weakness. I wanted to acknowledge you on that. Very Nice

 

[Snoopy]

That alone doesnt make someone a guru either.

I mustn't have explained myself very well.

I didn't mean I was tempted to ask the man if I could be his devotee.

s.

 

[Bandit]

According to the tradition above, does one guru only pass on information or develop any new insight?

In some traditions there is something held back from all other students and at the right moment that one particular & very important teaching will be passed on to the right student. That student will keep it with them until the guru dies. Then they find someone else to pass it on to. You should watch some more king fu movies

Any thoughts on guru moments? ie. it seems occasionally I find a temporary guru, a momentary guru, when someone provides insiane connection of thought which assists me to connect the dots.

Which leads me to the quiestion, in truth is everyone a guru and is it us that need to see/hear/understand (those with ears)?

I would not view someone like that as a guru, nor everyone as a guru. You can learn something from most everyone, but it does not make everyone my guru.