Etymology of "Guru"
Etznab
Several posts back the word "guru" appeared. Weeks
ago, I think.
Part of the meaning had something to do with light. I
think, "light giver" is one of the definitions for guru.
I've been curious about this word for weeks now. It's
one I have yet to research the history of in depth.
The definition I was familiar with had something to do
with weight, or heaviness. I wasn't sure how that idea
was connected to light, or lightgiver.
Just recently I read another definition. It broke the word
into "gu" & "ru", where "ru" pertained to "light" and "gu",
to "shadow" or "darkness" it seemed.
Tonight I decided to research the history (etymology)
for this word and found a Sanskrit dictionary link:
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/
Searching the word "guru" I found the following words
for a definition:
guru mf(%{vI})n. (cf. %{giri4} ; comp. %{ga4rIyas} , once
%{-yas-tara} , %{guru-tara} , superl. %{gariSTha} , %{guru
tama} see ss. vv.) heavy , weighty (opposed to %{laghu4})
RV. i , 39 , 3 and iv , 5 , 6 AV. &c. (g. %{zauNDA7di} Gan
2ar. 101) ; heavy in the stomach (food) , difficult to digest
MBh. i , 3334 Sus3r. ; great , large , extended , long
Ya1jn5. (see %{-kratu}) Bhartr2. &c. ; (in prosody) long
by nature or position (a vowel) Pra1t. (a vowel long both
by nature and by position is called %{garIyas} RPra1t.
xviii , 20) Pa1n2. 1-4 , 11 and 12 ; high in degree ,
vehement , violent , excessive , difficult , hard RV.
MBh. &c. ; grievous Megh. 80 ; important , serious ,
momentous MBh.&c. ; valuable , highly prized Ya1jn5.
ii , 30 (%{guru} = %{garIyas}) &c. ; haughty , proud
(speech) Pan5cat. ; venerable , respectable ; m. any
venerable or respectable person (father , mother , or
any relative older than one's self) Gobh. S3a1n3khGr2.
Mn. &c. ; a spiritual parent or preceptor (from whom a
youth receives the initiatory Mantra or prayer , who
instructs him in the S3a1stras and conducts the
necessary ceremonies up to that of investiture which
is performed by the A1ca1rya Ya1jn5. i , 34) RPra1t.
A1s3vGr2. Pa1rGr2. Mn. &c. ; the chief of (gen. or in
comp.) Ca1n2. Ragh. ii , 68 ; (with S3a1ktas) author of
a Mantra ; `" preceptor of the gods "' , Br2ihaspati Mn.
xi ; (hence) the planet Jupiter Jyot. VarBr2S. Bhartr2.
&c. ; `" Pa1n2d2u-teacher "' , Dron2a L. ; Prabha1-kara (celebrated
teacher of the Mi1ma1n6sa1 , usually
mentioned with Kuma1rila) SS3am2kar. vi , 50 ; xv ,
157 ; (= %{dharma}) `" venerable "' , the 9th astrological
mansion VarBr2S. i , 16 ; Mucuna pruritus L. ; N. of a
son of Sam2kr2iti BhP. ix , 21 , 2 du. parents MBh. ;
m. pl. parents and other venerable persons Mn. iv Vikr.
v , 10 Katha1s. ; a honorific appellation of a preceptor
(whose N. is also put in the pl.) , Jain Hit. ; (%{vI}) f.
`" venerable woman "' , a mother A1p. i , 21 , 9 ; `" great
(with child) "' , pregnant , a pregnant woman L. ; the wife
of a teacher W. ; [cf. $ ; Lat. {gravis} ; Goth. {kauriths} ;
Lith. {gie4ras}.]
At the link, I searched using the first dictionary on
the list. The second dictionary gave the following:
1 guru , f. {gurvI} a. heavy, weighty (w. abl. also =
{gurutara}), big, large, great, long (prosod.); strong,
vehement; difficult, hard; bad, evil; important, valuable,
venerable. Comp. {gurutara & ga3rIyaMs} heavier,
weightier, etc. than (abl.); very heavy, weighty etc.;
superl. {gariSTha} very big or swollen. -- m. any
venerable person, as father, mother (du. the parents),
teacher (also pl.), esp. Brhaspati as the teacher of
the gods, any elder relative; chief of (---). f. {gurvI}
pregnant, a pregnant woman.
Both of these definitions can be found by using
the 5th entry (All Dictionaries) on the link.
(I had to break up the lines in order to fit this screen,
but you can search for "guru" and get the page as is.)
I failed to find the word light mentioned even once.
Not to mention, darkness, shadow, dispeller of dark-
ness, or light-giver.
Using the link and searching for "guru" / substring
(vs. exact) I found:
1 aguru - mfn. not heavy, light ; (in prosody) short as
a short vowel alone or before a single consonant [5,1] ;
(%{us} , %{u}) , m.n. the fragrant Aloe wood and tree ,
Aquilaria Agallocha.
"Aguru" is basically the word "guru" with a negative
prefix qualifier. It changes the meaning of guru ["heavy"]
to ["light", or "not heavy"] its opposite.
Although I've just begun to research this word, I'm
curious about the "light-giver" definition. Does anybody
have more information about the history of this word?
Etznab
Etznab
Is it just me, or does that definition for "guru" seem to
better fit the description of a pregnant woman?
I'm trying to find the connection with "light-giver". All I
can think of at this point is that a baby comes from the
darkness into the light. In this case the woman delivers
the individual. Or, the mother does. (One might say the
baby delivers itself?)
Someone help me out here. I must be missing some-
thing.
At any rate I believe this query is a good example of
how people go about discovering the past. The many
obstacles, trips and turns.
Traditionally speaking, it would seem that the word
"guru" pertains only to men. Relatively speaking that
is, some modern definitions talk about the "light-giver"
being a man. But I don't suspect this was always the
case.
Then there is that old paradigm of "Sun Worship"
to consider. And in some places I have found the
definition for "guru" to be connected with the Sun.
Besides, a lot of mythology for Gods of creation
appear to have connections to the Sun. Births and
deaths having peculiar similiarity to the "birth" and
"death" of the Sun.
That was the patriarchal paradigm, more or less,
it would seem. The matriarchal paradigms, as they
are commonly interpreted today, appear to have a
form of trinity closer to the workings of nature.
So how might the definition of spiritual teacher,
"guru", have changed with time when taking into
account contemporary ideas of men and women
in a given time period, or area?
There was something in Madame Blavatsky's
book - Isis Unveiled - Chapter III (Is Zoroaster a
generic name?) p. 141. It was the only reference
in the index for "guru" (actually, guru-astara, a
spiritual teacher). A sentence from the paragraph
read:
"The opinion of the kabalists is that there was but
one Zarathustra and many guruastars [< in italics]
or spiritual teachers., and that one such guru [also
italics], or rather huru-aster [< huru in italics], as he
is called in the old manuscripts, was the instructor
of Pythaoras. ...."
Be that as it may, what I found - perhaps even
more enlightening - was an appearance of the word
"Lao-Tzu" in one of the books I was looking at. I'm
not sure if it was one by Theosophy. (BTW, the index
in Isis Unveiled [Vol. II] illustrates the name "Lao-tse,
or Laotsu"). The memory of this word, or some of it's
etymology, was familiar to me. In my own dictionary
I compiled the following:
lao - "Name for an ideograph showing ren [person],
mao [hair], and hua [change]. General meanings
include: person whose hair changes; old [of animate
things] (Chinese). Associated spellings/words: laonian
['old age']; laoren ['old man']; laoshi ['teacher']; laoyou
['old friend']; laozi, Lao-tse ['founder of Taoism']; Lao
Tzu ['old master']."
The word "lao" appears to suggest "old", but I am not
certain about the word tzu (tse, or zi) and whether that
word gives an indication of gender. Does anybody know
what it means?
The Chinese for old man was "laoren". Here again
the element of gender is not apparent to me since the
pictograph for "ren" does not necessarily indicate gender,
but rather, "person".
I haven't the time right now to check history for the
word "tzu" and I don't know that it can shed light on
the word "guru".
Unfortunately, not many people are involved with
discovering word history, or etymology research. If
that were the case it "might" make things easier for
others on a similar path.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks to the Internet, I located a fairly good summary
for the history of "guru". It looks at the history of this word
from many different angles (although I have not found the
word compared with a "pregnant woman" :) :) :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru
Just before the paragraph entitled "Guru and God" is a
sentence that reads:
The concept of the "guru" can be traced as far back as
the early Upanishads, where the idea of the Divine Teacher
on earth first manifested from its early Brahmin associations.
Under the heading Guru and God is a quote by Kabir:
Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I
prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me.
Also from Wikipedia:
The guru-shishya tradition
Main article: Guru-shishya tradition
The guru-shishya tradition is the transmission of teachings
from a guru (teacher, ) to a ' i ya' (disciple, ). In this
relationship, subtle and advanced knowledge is conveyed and
received through the student's respect, commitment, devotion
and obedience. The student eventually masters the knowledge
that the guru embodies.
The dialogue between guru and disciple is a fundamental
component of Hinduism, established in the oral traditions
of the Upanishads (c. 2000 BC). The term Upanishad
derives from the Sanskrit words upa (near), ni (down)
and ad (to sit) - "sitting down near" a spiritual teacher
to receive instruction. Examples include the relationship
between Krishna and Arjuna in the Mahabharata (Bhagavad
Gita), and between Rama and Hanuman in the Ramayana.
In the Upanishads, the guru-disciple relationship appears
in many settings (a husband answers a wife's questions
about immortality; a teenage boy is taught by Yama, who
is Death personified, etc.) Sometimes the sages are female,
and sometimes the instruction is sought by kings.
In the Vedas, the brahmavidya or knowledge of Brahman
is communicated from guru to shishya orally.
The word Sikh is derived from the Sanskrit shishya.[23]
The article even mentions David Lane:
David C. Lane, a professor of sociology, and, since 2005,
an ex-member and critic of Radha Soami Satsang Beas,
argued in 1997 that based on his research of the Radha
Soami movement that few gurus have a flawless and well-
documented lineage, and that there is quite often conflict
between different disciples claiming to be the only legitimate
successor of their guru.[1]
I found that most of the article talked about the history
of different gurus, whereas my primary interest is more
about the history of the word itself.
Apparently, the reference to "heavy" pertains to the
use of guru as an adjective and means something like
"heavy, or weighty with knowledge", etc.
However the wikipedia article does cover the association
of light and darkness with the word guru.
Probably what stood out to me most - and something I
will probably pursue further - was the second paragraph
of the article:
"Guru" also refers in Sanskrit to Brihaspati, a Hindu divine
figure (on which is based the analogous Roman planet/god
Jupiter). In Vedic astrology, Guru or Brihaspati is believed to
exert teaching influences. Indeed, in many Indian languages
such as Hindi, the occidental Thursday is called either Brih-
aspativaar or Guruvaar (vaar meaning day of the week).
How it is that "heavy with knowledge" equates to "dis-
peller of darkness" I am not altogether certain. However,
it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to see
that knowledge (the first part of which includes the word
"Know") can serve as a form of illumination.
It was said (in the article) that "The Guru (teacher) Shishya
(disciple) parampara or guru parampara, occurs where the
knowledge (in any field) is passed down undiluted through the
succeeding generations."
The word parampara (Sanskrit ) denotes a long succession
of teachers and disciples in traditional Indian culture. The Hinduism
Dictionary defines parampara is "the line of spiritual gurus in
authentic
succession of initiation; the chain of mystical power and authorized
continuity, passed from guru to guru." In Sanskrit, the word
literally
means: Uninterrupted series of succession.
The Guru (teacher) Shishya (disciple) parampara or guru parampara,
occurs where the knowledge (in any field) is passed down undiluted
through the succeeding generations. It is the traditional,
residential
form of education, where the Shishya remains and learns with his
Guru as a family member. The domains may include spiritual, artistic
(kala such as music or dance) or educational.
(These two appear just above the paragraph on David Lane)
This is probably very important to discovery:
"... where the knowledge (in any field) is passed down undiluted
through the succeeding generations."
In fact, if the knowledge had been passed down undiluted - by
retaining the truth - how much would there be left to dis-cover?
This is the problem, as far as I can see it, that the knowledge
(or what was known) did not get all passed down undiluted. And
so people continue to debate the actual truth.
For what its worth.
Etznab
whitefe...@gmail.com
> Is it just me, or does that definition for "guru" seem to
> better fit the description of a pregnant woman?
>
> I'm trying to find the connection with "light-giver". All I
> can think of at this point is that a baby comes from the
> darkness into the light. In this case the woman delivers
> the individual. Or, the mother does. (One might say the
> baby delivers itself?)
Etznab, this is an interesting thought.
In a literal sense; the baby during invetro, becomes aware of light,
sound and emotions.
The baby "is" being prepared and becomes aware of "Its" self and
life, before birth in a more basic form.
After birth it begins "Its" or this process all over again?
I get the point to this thread, yet I have come to a different place
than some.
Inevitably, all will have no need for a guru or light giver, as we are
our own light.
Soul knows no gender right? ;-)
Anyway the analogy of the pregnant women is interesting, since I
happen to be experiencing this vicariously through my daughter.
I can't say I am enjoying the emotional roller coaster she is on,
nearing her due date, but becoming a grandma (I'm too young for this)
makes my heart smile!
> Traditionally speaking, it would seem that the word
> "guru" pertains only to men. Relatively speaking that
> is, some modern definitions talk about the "light-giver"
> being a man. But I don't suspect this was always the
> case.
>
Sharing an article a friend had forwarded to me awhile ago. It's long
so be forewarned, and no I'm not a Buddhist!
Buddhist saying:
If you meet the Buddha along the road, kill him!
Enlightenment: The Guru's Trap
Andrew Paterson-09/2002
Any teacher who declares his or her enlightenment,
using it to attract a following, is greatly harmful to
spiritual progress.
SPIRITUALITY, for many people, has become a quest
for that elusive state called enlightenment, when the
confines of the ego are permanently burst, leaving a
state of everlasting bliss, inner emptiness and unity
with All That Is. This enlightening process is usually
believed to be gradual, taking many lifetimes of rebirth
and effort to complete before the individual is able to
strip away all the layers of ignorance and illusion to reveal
the open heart of truth. With its roots in Buddhism and
Hinduism, this system of spiritual development has gained
huge popularity in the West (especially in New Age circles)
because it is so much more sophisticated than the fairy
stories of heaven and hell after a single lifetime preached
by the Semitic religions - Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
As Hinduism is the religion of the caste system in India, it
mixes the elitism of strict hierarchy and a multitude of gods
with this gradual awakening of the individual, which is often
influenced by divine intervention. This can make it quite
confusing to Westerners, for much of its practice is in ceremonies
to different deities and the devotion to a particular spiritual
master or guru. Buddhism, on the other hand, is essentially
Hinduism stripped of its gods, superstitions and hierarchical
structure, with the emphasis on the perfection of the individual
through his or her own actions (under the guidance of a master
who is not a god or divine, just someone like ourselves who is
more experienced on this path to liberation). In fact, Buddhism
is more a system of psychology than a religion, for you don't
have to believe in this or that god to develop spiritually. This
is why it is so attractive to the agnostic (and atheistic) Western
mind.
Most of us know the story about the Buddha and how he cut
through the illusions and suffering of this world to find a state
that was real - the state of enlightenment. If you have ever
seen the film Little Buddha you will see the wonderful depiction
of this process: Gautama sits under the Bodhi tree and fearlessly
faced the armies of Mara - the Lord of Desire and Death - and
he defeats Mara to become a Buddha - an Awakened One. When
he reached this state, that was it... he was home; he had reached
his destination. There was no more spiritual work to do because
there were no more layers of illusion for him to strip away (although
this was just the start of his teaching work, showing others this
path to liberation).
Many of us love this story because it depicts an ordinary human,
like you and me, struggling against all odds to heroically reach
the ultimate goal of unity with All That Is. We can identify with
the Buddha's suffering on realizing that death and separation will
be experienced by all of us at some stage, which is why suffering
is recognized by Buddhism as an integral part of life. But instead
of avoiding the issue, as many of us do, the Buddha faced it head
on and found within himself that which was immortal. It wasn't
his body; it wasn't his mind; it wasn't even his spirit; it was his
basic consciousness. And by identifying only with that which is
immortal, he broke the cycle of death and reached a state of
absolute truth. He became enlightened.
What the Buddha did to reach this state, and what countless
masters before and after him have done too, can also be done
by us. This was the Buddha's message: all of us can awaken
from this illusion because he awoke, and he was just an ordinary
human being. However, the delusion is so strong that we usually
need the guidance of a master in order to work our way to
realization. (This is similar to the film Matrix, in which Keanu
Reeves lives in a world of delusion without realizing it until he is
liberated by those outside the illusion.) Those guides are called
masters, gurus or simply teachers.
Throughout history, there have been many fine and upstanding
gurus who have taught the path to enlightenment and have
demonstrated a great kindness and love for humanity. Usually
(but not always), they have been from Eastern cultures which
has a culture and a mythology which encourages such
development. These cultures are also deep enough to prevent
any particular guru from hijacking ancient wisdom and using
it to his or her own end, although they have, of course, produced
some charlatans - individuals who have feigned enlightenment
for individual glory, attention and through expectation. Fortunately,
the damage of their masquerade is somewhat limited by a system
that pretty much defines a guru's general behavior, and offers
many alternatives teachers.
Problems arose when gurus started moving out of their original
cultural context and set up ashrams and spiritual centres in
Western societies. Suddenly, he found himself (and it usually was
a he) in a situation far different from that which he was used to,
one which challenged his "enlightenment" in ways that it had never
been challenged before. Most coped with the challenge admirably,
seeding Western spirituality with genuine paths to awakening.
However, a string of shameful abuses (sex, alcohol, drugs, power
and general excess) were perpetrated by a few high profile gurus,
despite their brilliance as teachers. Many of their students, who
had opened their hearts and minds (and wallets) to these "masters",
were used and abused. (Tibetan Buddhism - with the exception
of a few brilliant rogues like Trungpa - tends to be the least
abusive because the training a monk goes through is institutionalized
in universities of spiritual learning and involves many different
teachers. This system is therefore far less open to abuse than one
operated by a single despotic guru lineage.)
Discipline plays a prominent role in the training of most Eastern
spiritual teachers, and so such abuses were and are fortunately
uncommon. The real problems arose when Westerners, who had
spent time with Eastern gurus and learned to model their enlightened
behavior, set themselves up as enlightened masters without having
done the necessary work. Many have had genuine spiritual
awakenings, but without the realization that the path to true
awakening is littered with many minor and major awakenings before
one could even suggest full enlightenment. So these Westerners
have publicly proclaimed their enlightenment and collected together
their own band of disciples on the strength of that proclamation
(in the East by contrast there is a whole tradition to recognizing
whether somebody is enlightened... and it is usually third party).
Lacking genuine wisdom and the understanding of the subtle
complexity of the inner realms and the way that we are entangled
in illusion, these teachers tend to be more direct and simplistic,
presenting their own enlightenment as the solution to others'
spiritual quest, in the hope that their realization will rub off on
their students. Of course, techniques of meditation and spiritual
contemplation are taught, but not usually with much skill or
experience. The message is primarily one of "worship me and feel
free". Enlightenment becomes a gift in return for worship. And in
the material West we just love the idea of spirituality being
reduced to a thing which can not only be bought in the spiritual
market place, but one which can never be taken away from us!
This is not to say that Western masters are all fakes. Most are
highly developed individuals with the wisdom never to present
themselves as enlightened masters. But the ones who do present
themselves in that way set themselves and their students up for
disaster. And there is little point us reasoning that they must be
enlightened because we feel enlightened around them because
we all underestimate the immense power of projection and
expectation that is innate to human psychology. We pride
ourselves on our ability to "feel someone out" when in fact we
are relying on subtle micro-cues that are starting to be identified
in psychology and which can be mimicked by the less scrupulous
and conscious.
Most false teachers are probably not even aware that they are
not what they think they are. When we try to awake from a dream,
it is all too easy to dream that we are awake. The illusion is
insidious. Human beings are masters at deluding themselves and
others for which there are a myriad of psychological reasons -
most of them unconscious. Often groups of people will get
together in a shared deception, like individuals acting in a play
which seems real. One plays the enlightened master whilst the
others play his disciples. But illusions can be psychologically and
spiritually painful when the curtain eventually falls and the actors
rediscover their unbearably ordinary lives.
The context in which we meet a guru also determines our reaction
to them. Unfortunately, we invariably meet a guru or teacher on their
own turf, where they are king. We find ourselves right in the middle
of the reverence with which the followers hold the master and in that
context it is naturally very easy for us to project our concept of an
enlightened master onto the individual. (If, on the other hand, we
met them in the street wearing normal clothes, not knowing who
they are and without seeing their followers, we would be a lot less
likely to feel that buzz.)
Deciding whether a person is a realized master is both a leap of
faith and a waste of time. There is a misconception that only an
enlightened master is useful to us. If that were the case, there
wouldn't be many teachers or students! A teacher can be a
fantastic guide without being enlightened. He or she only has
to be a little further down the path from us, and to interact with
us personally for us to receive great benefit. Seeing imperfection
in that teacher is actually a benefit for in doing so we are less
likely
to put them on a pedestal and give away our own power and
responsibility. This is the origin of the saying: "If you meet the
Buddha along the road, kill him!" We must use our spiritual fire to
find the Buddha within, not to worship him without. (When a
Buddhist bows in front of a statue of the Buddha or in front of a
living master, she is not worshiping a god; instead, she is bowing
to the representation or embodiment of the Buddha inside herself.
She is honoring her own potential to awaken.)
Central to the process of awakening is detaching ourselves from
the illusion that we are a special individual and that we deserve
or need this or that. As it is our desires that attract us to this
illusion
- the desire to be special, the desire to make money, the desire to
have sex, the desire to be spiritual - central to spiritual progress
must be the detachment from desire. This is done through a formal
process called meditation which is an exercise of sitting still and
practicing observing what is going on in our heads without being
pulled into our thoughts, feelings and fantasies.
Many people mistakenly believe that in meditation we are trying
to empty our minds. Whilst, with years of practice, this will
eventually happen, trying to do this in any way is completely
counterproductive. Meditation is like a mini journey to awakening:
we learn to see what is in front of us and accept it 100% without
becoming attached to it; we do not try to control the process
because control is just another form of attachment (to a certain
outcome). In the same way, if we hold any attachment or desire
for enlightenment, it will elude us. That is the paradox of spiritual
development, and is why true spiritual masters are extremely
unlikely to announce their state of enlightenment: it is unhelpful
to both themselves and to their students or followers, and is used
primarily by unscrupulous characters to attract followers. (The
Buddha claimed he was awake 2.5 thousand years ago, but that
was at a time when the concept of enlightenment was in its infancy
and as yet untainted by expectation.)
But as in meditation, reaching that state of emptiness in no way
guarantees that we are there for good. The state of awakeness is
not an identity, but mindfulness consciously maintained in each
and every moment. There are many examples of awakened teachers
who, for one reason or another, slipped back into delusion. As
Suzuki Roshi said, "...there are no enlightened people, there is only
enlightened activity." If we hold this in mind, we are far less likely
to be duped by false teachers trying to hook us with their exalted
context-dependent identities. It is unfortunately second nature for
human beings to view others as things (un-divide-uals) and not
simply a process of consciousness. If we could change our
perception of what a person is, we would be a lot closer to
realization ourselves. That can only be done by introspection -
going inside and seeing the process of consciousness and identity
in ourselves. We ask, "Who am I?", and we learn for ourselves the
the ephemeral nature of identity. Only then are we free from being
manipulated by "who" or "what" somebody claims to "be"; we are
free from the Guru's trap.
Ken
There's a lot of truth in what Paterson says. But I find the
conventional contemporary Buddhist viewpoint that says a
self-described teacher is more likely than not to be deluded
more than a little strange when the Buddha himself made claims
to enlightenment. In effect it was okay for people 2500 years
ago to trust someone, but not today. Are people that much less
perceptive today? Maybe so, but I tend to doubt it.
A living teacher might not be right for everyone. Maybe some
are better off just reading books and listening to teachers who
do not claim Mastership. I don't know what other people should
do.
Rumi, the 13th century mystic poet and Sufi teacher said, "The
true teacher knocks down the idol that the student makes of
him." I believe this is a necessary part of a positive student
/ teacher relationship. Rumi also said this about not having a
teacher at all ...
"Don't break with the prophet of your day:
don't rely on your own skill and footsteps.
Lion though you are, to go on the way without a guide
is arrogant, foolish, and contemptible.
Step aboard the ship and set sail,
like the soul going towards the soul's Beloved.
Without hands or feet, travel toward Timelessness
just as spirits flee from non-existence."
--
Ken
Tian Yue
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lao simply means old. It is as commonly used as the word "old" is in
English. The word is often used to greet an older person, preceeding
the last name. Likewise, 'xiao' meaning 'small' or 'young' is often
applied to the name of a younger person.
"Tzu," (or "Zi' to use the better and more modern pinyin form of
Romanization of chinese characters), means 'son or 'child' in this
context.
The meaning is similar to 'old one' in our language. It is a term of
respect, since Chinese culture has great reverence for the elderly. It
is often applied to revered teachers, scholars, etc.
There is no mystery to the name 'lao tzu' and it is a very, very
common term in the Chinese language.
Tian Yue
Etznab
Liz,
Thanks for sharing all that. It took some time to read it,
but I was glad to see it. Along with your earlier remarks.
These snippets I really enjoyed:
<snip>
We must use our spiritual fire to find the Buddha within, not to
worship him without. (When a Buddhist bows in front of a statue
of the Buddha or in front of a living master, she is not worshiping
a god; instead, she is bowing to the representation or embodiment
of the Buddha inside herself. She is honoring her own potential to
awaken.)
<snip>
Suzuki Roshi said, "...there are no enlightened people, there is
only enlightened activity."
<snip>
I think that when a person finds what makes all of this happen,
they find a really good friend.
Etznab
Etznab
> On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Several posts back the word "guru" appeared. Weeks
> > ago, I think.>
> > Part of the meaning had something to do with light. I
> > think, "light giver" is one of the definitions for guru.>
> > I've been curious about this word for weeks now. It's
> > one I have yet to research the history of in depth.
> > curious about the "light-giver" definition. Does anybody
> > have more information about the history of this word?
>
> > Etznab
>
> and another link here:http://www.atv-guru.com/
>
> I <squint> would venture to say our word 'guru' has something to do
> hands on control of a liquid source such as a small irrigation canal
> commonly used by small farmers to sustain a small hectare. <side
> glance>
>
> My guess it would seem this word "guru" was abstracted to a level of
> authority that had the final say about who got how much water. Later,
> I believe, this took on a larger meaning when it was projected onto a
> group of people in reference to conscience and the flow of grace into
> each indivicual person. As early Hindu civilization evolved, the
> original semiotic was forgotten and "guru" took on the same
> connotation as "Priest."
>
> The ECKist does not NEED a light-giver with a hand on the valve of
> conscious evolution, because he or she learns through a guide or by
> hueristics (trial & error) how to control the Actinic Rays themselves.
> A guru, priest, or reverand is not someone to be worshipped or kiss
> the feet of because each Soul is, as Garland relentlessly hammers us
> with, ITs own guru. The Living ECK Master connects Soul with the Light
> and Sound. I have talked to young Sikkhs who hear the sound current
> (shabda), but have never heard of ECKANKAR, so one does not have to be
> a member of ECKANKAR to be linked with the Actinic Source, S-U-G-M-A-
> D.
>
> JR ;-)
JR,
I tried the second one of those links, but it didn't load
right away and I abandoned the effort.
That thing about flowing water, can you tell me if that
was an older meaning of the word "guru"? According to
the information on those links? Or, was this someone
making fun of the word?
It wasn't clear to me from your illustrations.
Etznab