Do you need a master, guru or group?

I value a car, but I value the driver more. I value the flesh, but I value the soul more.

Similarly,
I value the library, but I value individual subjects more. I value the book, but I value the author more.

So then, I favor the cars driven by souls, and the libraries driven by authors. The library is full of people choosing what to write, and of people choosing what to read. Both are the authors. One person authors the book, but the other person authors their mind.

Is there a more rightful way? It seems the suggestion is that the 'Master' or 'Guru' should choose what another person must read, or choose what another person must author. To me that is neither a master, nor a guru... that is a tyrant wanting to author their students or to make followers. The student always has the right of choice of whether or when to follow. Is the student not valued more than the subject? Again, I value the soul more than the car, and I value the person more than the library. Following is good, but it must be a choice or it is not 'following'. If a driver does not obey a road then they will not arrive at a destination. If a student does not follow then they will not graduate. That is sufficient.

There is no teacher who can really teach without judging homework, and there is no follower who can be assured they are following without receiving that judgment. Therefore books and cars are insufficient without the authors and the drivers.

Teaching a group is efficient, but homework is judged individually. Group travel is efficient, but individuals must choose their destinations individually.

A student should not be afraid of any book, nor of any teacher, if they realize that they are the author of their own mind. Neither should a passenger be afraid of being a passenger. Wrongful words or misguided lies can be read and equally understood. A lie often conveys more information to me than the truth. If I blindly follow someone and they take me someplace wrong, I will have gained the knowledge of a way not to go.
 
Francis king said:
as a buddhist, I am led to believe that my "self", such as it is, is fine as it is. Yes, I might be contaminated with afflictions, I might feel a little poisoned, I might be bound, fettered, blinkered, et cetera, but by understanding thought and the nature of thought I am able to forsake all these afflictions and be happier, less bound, less fetterred, et cetera. By understanding the chain of causation, by understanding the interrelatedness of things, by understanding how I became "me", I realise "me" doesn't exist, as such, and I am just like a hard disk, full of disparate bits of information and subjects and objects that I have been presented with and either embraced or rejected. My opinions, such as they are, are not actually mine, but my fathers, my friends, the product of the wider society, etc, etc.... eventually, I wake up, but what I wake up to is .... myself....
Click to expand...
I say: You are not the hard disk. You are the one who embraced or rejected. The causality of that is only fed back from this world if and when you choose it to be. You are the author of your mind. I might own a neuron or two in it, but only because you gave them to me.
 
yes, cyberpi, the machine that processed the programme, that's u/me/him/her/us/them... the program? the info "we" reject/embrace...

yes, we are the authors of our own minds, but not untilwe realise that... instead, we are influenced, molded, shaped, by experience, by society, by family, peers, works of art, etc, etc... often we do not have a hand in this, in truth, for we are not old enough to understand, or we are not given all the information we need to form a true opinion- and so instead we rely on aproximations, half truths, we do not know what to do so try to do what we think our boss or mother or teacher would like, or we cannot act as we would like, or as is right, due to other factors- danger, threats, losses, etc...

until u deliberately choose what is real and what isn't, until u make the conscious effort to be whatever u are and own ur own thoughts, until then... u might think u are the author, but u are not- somebody else has written the script, and ur just playing it out... somebody somewhere has given u a script, a set of rules, and a role, and u will unconsciously perform as is expected of u, until u become the "bodhisattva", the being who has woke up to themselves"...

and, as I said on another thread, but meant to say here- with regards to buddhists who do not need teachers- they do exist- and what comes to mind is...

solitary realizers!

we havent mentioned them yet, but they are a valid part of buddhism, aint they?
 
Namaste Francis King,

thank you for the post.

Francis king said:
and, as I said on another thread, but meant to say here- with regards to buddhists who do not need teachers- they do exist- and what comes to mind is...

solitary realizers!

we havent mentioned them yet, but they are a valid part of buddhism, aint they?
Click to expand...

indeed they certainly are.

metta,

~v
 
AndrewX said:
I might should bite my tongue, but I will go on to say it ...

... the person who thinks s/he can `raise the serpent-fire' successfully & safely, and direct it to the proper centers, in the proper order, at the proper time ...

... and all of this without the assistance of one who has already done so ...

-- has apparently come across some mistaken information.

That's about as concrete a reason that I think anyone can give, for WHY we all need a `Guru,' at a certain point along the spiritual Path.
Click to expand...

Does reading it in a book by someone who has been there count? The first book I read when I set out on my search for Truth some 40 years ago was "Beyond The Himalayas" by Murdo MacDonald-Bayne.

You can read it online here:Beyond Himalayas

The "foreword" to the book clearly states the essence of the teaching.

Now this MacDonald-Bayne fellow wrote a number of books. In one of these books: "The Higher Power You Can use" he details very clearly a method of raising kundalini. Of course I would not attempt to try this because some of my chakras are quite disfunctional. However I have such faith in this man's teachings -- which came first-hand from Tibetan Lamas -- that I accept his method of raising kundalini is valid.
 
Methods and interpretations abound. Each of us has them. Call it subjective spiritual anarchy. We need masters or groups to provide intersubjective verification (what we experience is experienced by others), intersubjective objectification (sharing experiences until they can be approached objectivelhy, and validation (relating to the Kosmos as it exists).

This should not be taken as a belief in the necessity for a guru-cheela relationship. No, the H!ly Sp!rit can suffice, or Lao zi, or Osho, or Rufus Jones, or Matthew Fox.....
 
A master or guru is important to tailor to exactly what you encounter, he has already been there so can be an insurance that there is no danger through the trying times of awakening - described variously through Jesus' time in the desert with the devil, and Mara in Buddhism.

The group can never help.
 
radarmark said:
Methods and interpretations abound. Each of us has them. Call it subjective spiritual anarchy. We need masters or groups to provide intersubjective verification (what we experience is experienced by others), intersubjective objectification (sharing experiences until they can be approached objectivelhy, and validation (relating to the Kosmos as it exists).

This should not be taken as a belief in the necessity for a guru-cheela relationship. No, the H!ly Sp!rit can suffice, or Lao zi, or Osho, or Rufus Jones, or Matthew Fox.....
Click to expand...

So many judge Osho before reading him, his words are so potent though, they can illuminate just by reading!
 
Technically: a master or a guru, and a student, comprise a group: two.

As I see it though, two people are always virgins to their future, and it is never a requirement for one person to hook up with another just because they have more experience. :D
 
luecy7 said:
Technically: a master or a guru, and a student, comprise a group: two.

As I see it though, two people are always virgins to their future, and it is never a requirement for one person to hook up with another just because they have more experience. :D
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the process then...

The point of the master/disciple relationship is that there occurs a merging, a dissolving of the two into one. It is not like a teacher/student relationship, knowledge is not imparted, only the fragrance is imparted like the scent of a flower, all else is trivial in the relationship - just for something to do, an excuse for them to be together.

It is a love affair, do the dates or the conversation really matter? You are merely trying to become closer, and then in the depths of intimacy each shares their being completely in orgasm. It is the same, except it is not physical, it is a dance of souls, not of bodies, still there is a point of orgasm - mahamudra, the great orgasm.
 
Gurus master etc can be useful however they are often rather expensive.
 
NiceCupOfTea said:
Gurus master etc can be useful however they are often rather expensive.
Click to expand...

No true guru or master will charge, he shares because there is nothing else to do, not because he needs to fill his bank account. Problem is, it is quite hard to find them because they also don't need attention.
 
Then, Jesus has accepted support from rich people around him, so it is not absolute - he has also certainly attempted to gain attention, even sending people out ahead just to create curiosity so he isn't ignored. The guru will know you before you know him though, unless he seeks one on one time and doesn't ask for money, he is not your guru.

This is why the apostles have accepted Jesus' call to follow without hesitation, these are not random people, nothing is an accident. If it seems random and accidental, it is merely a poor transition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top