Personal contact with a guru
Darren
I was wondering if anyone on this board has had contact
with a guru? If you have can you please give me your impressions of
the exchange, how the guru appeared, what was their demeanor, etc?
Thanks,
Darren
Richard
Why do you ask? Thinking of seeing one?
A guru or teacher can help one get out of ignorance. An ignorant
person can't get themself out of ignorance due to their being in the
midst of ignorance.
But be very very careful whom you trust with your soul. Many gurus and
teachers are not to be trusted.
empty2
I don't believe there's any necessarily defining characteristic,
though plenty of stereotypes. You either decide to trust/believe him
or her...... or not. Time will tell if your decision is vindicated or
not, but how long, who knows?
Trust, to whatever degree, with determination and perseverance, in a
genuine teacher..... the depth and quality of that relationship goes
beyond any of the usual platitudes, and there is nothing closer to a
personal relationship with 'god' or 'Self' on this earth.
As such a devotee, one may feel at times inspired to sing praises to
the embodiment of realization, but more likely a profound silence and
deep respect alone seems more befitting.
A key factor, perhaps, is the correspondence between the teacher's
words and those of the great teachings/masters. However, at the
beginning at least, the clarity of one's understanding of either may
be limited. Come to think about it, no-one ever ceases to be 'a
beginner'.
Ram
There are many types of gurus. Business gurus, network gurus, sex
gurus, music gurus, and even spiritual gurus, some of high caliber and
some of low caliber. If you are thinking about seeing a guru, it is
useful and advisable to know what it is that you are looking for.
It's a funny world we live in. In the western most people tend to
immediately think of people like Rajneesh, and Jim Jones, and others
who are basically considered by most to be cult leaders. In the east
where literally hundreds of millions of people are exposed to advaitic
principles as part of their social culture there is a bit more
discernment about gurus in general. Granted, there are still many cult
leaders who operate under the guise of being gurus, but most
intelligent people don't take them very seriously.
One thing that I have observed (and it may be off, as it is only my
observation), is that in the east there is a better understanding of
what constitutes a genuine spiritual guru, whereas in the west, most
people, even those in so-called 'advaitic' circles have no clue as to
whether a person acting as a guru can actually help one to leave
behind the darkness of ignorance by acting as a medium for imparting
the light of self-knowledge. Empty touched upon the gist of this point
when mentioning that a guru should have the support of great teachings
and masters that are timeless and not dependent upon particular
personalities.
Most modern day advaita gurus in the west have no knowledge of the
timeless advaitic teachings that have been passed down from time
immemorial (or have utter contempt for them). Those who most spiritual
aspirants in the west consider to be great adaita teachers are
generally considered in the east to be the lowest calliber teachers
because of their lack of knowledge or affiliation with authoritative
teachings and masters. They are largely considered to be equivelent to
how we think of televangelists and cult leaders in the west. On my
last trip to India I found it both funny and sad to see that christian
televangelists are even found there now spewing out their garbage.
When evaluating a guru there is something that is traditionally called
the threefold verification that you will rarely ever hear about in the
west. The three are; is what is being taught in accord with 1) the
great and highly respected teachings, 2) the great and highly
respected masters, 3) and is what is being taught verifiable in your
own experience. If any one of these three is lacking, then the guru is
usually quickly dismissed as not being authoritative in self-
knowledge.
OK, nuff said.
Richard
On Mar 8, 12:56 pm, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One thing that I have observed (and it may be off, as it is only my
> observation), is that in the east there is a better understanding of
> what constitutes a genuine spiritual guru, whereas in the west, most
> people, even those in so-called 'advaitic' circles have no clue as to
> whether a person acting as a guru can actually help one to leave
> behind the darkness of ignorance by acting as a medium for imparting
> the light of self-knowledge. Empty touched upon the gist of this point
> when mentioning that a guru should have the support of great teachings
> and masters that are timeless and not dependent upon particular
> personalities.
Some people see a teacher, get a kensho experience ("Kenshō
experiences are tiered, in that they escalate from initial glimpses
into the nature of mind, on to an experience of emptiness, and then
perhaps on to Buddhahood."), become manic or the opposite--peaceful,
and think they are fully enlightened (but deep down they must have
their doubts, I would suppose). Then they go on to write books, blogs,
etc. and act as teachers themselves....all because of a common
experience. This is the neo-Advaita lunacy of a quick fix.
What Ram indicates is more traditional Advaita. Experience is fine but
to make sense out of it there must be some background understanding.
Otherwise it's a (full of) crap shoot.
Rodger
thoughts I'd like to share....
Teachers are all around us...treat no one lightly and think nothing is
useless,for everyone has a moment and everything has its place.
(Unknown)
The highest truth cannot be put into words.
Therefore the greatest teacher has nothing to say.
He simply gives himself in service,and never worries. (Lao-tzu)
There's a part of every living thing that wants to become itself,the
tadpole into the frog,the chrysalis into the butterfly,a damaged human
being into a whole one.That is spirituality. (Ellen Bass)
godszen
people, you wouldn't pick him out of a crowd. On the other hand his
radiance is far greater than I ever imagined anyone's could ever be.
Darren
seems somewhat challenging and I thought what would a guru be like,
would he/she be like us or somehow different, would they be more
compassionate, insightful, peace-loving, or am I romanticizing what it
is to be realised.
Cheers,
Darren.
Ram
What does "like us" mean to you?
Also, just curious, but what in your mind, makes this forum
challenging?
"I ain't as think as you drunk I am."
> > > Darren- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richard
There's no "like us" as long as I'm here. God broke the mold Before he
made me.
I was going to say that a good teacher would not be teaching with an
air of superiority but at the same level the student is at. BUT then
there's Nis. My way or the highway.
You can learn from every person, animal, plant, and rock. Even from
yourSelf. It's tricky though if you pick and choose. Someone can have
a beatific look and spout soundbites and only have an intellectual
understanding. Another might have deep experience, knowledge, and deep
conviction, yet be unable to effectively transmit the message.
Darren
from a normal person and believe they are extremely rare and probably
don't post on this forum. About its challenging nature, sometimes it
seems to be a contest of wills and intellect rather than something
more fundamental. But, I may have got it all wrong.
Gary
Like many here, I've spent time with a Guru..or two.
It strikes me that my Guru days were filled with my love of mystery
and belief in personal enlightenment and my personal lack of merit.
The "Guru" was imbibed with the qualities that I cared to attach in my
romantic/manic search for personal one-up on the world. Great
teachers spring from many places, including this forum. I always
found the most wanting part of the equation to be one of my personal
myopia. These days, my guru(s) tend to be young children. If you
want to find out what life is about, just drop your adult friends and
hang with the wee people, or watch a sunset, or walk in a newly
flocked winter forest... just my two cents..
Darren
Rodger
THE ODYSSEY of ENLIGHTENMENT / Rare Interviews with Enlightened
Teachers of Our Time.Is written by Berthold Madhukar Thompson.You can
google it for more info..
Richard
Met someone who said his American spiritual teacher took all his
money. When I asked how this could happen, he told me he was convinced
he had to turn over the money as a way of getting rid of ego.
And in India, someone said he overheard Papaji telling someone, "I
tell them they are enlightened so they will go home and leave me
alone".
Beware, be wary, be weary.
Gary
I think that you are confused. It is the politicians that are trying
to get us to turn over all of our money. They argue that starving,
sick children need the money and that selfish tax paying citizens need
to give over their earnings. Same scum.. different scam.
Richard
On Mar 11, 10:28 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard:
>
> I think that you are confused. It is the politicians that are trying
> to get us to turn over all of our money. They argue that starving,
> sick children need the money and that selfish tax paying citizens need
> to give over their earnings. Same scum.. different scam.
"Same scum..different scam." Good line Gary. If I forget you said it
and present it as my own, you'll forgive this aging brain.
Swami Somethingananda (I told you I forget things didn't I Cary?), he
wrote:
"I don't require any special effort to experience consciousness. I
don't require any special experience to recognize consciousness. I
don't require any guru to experience consciousness. My only problem is
I have taken the consciousness for granted. A guru is required only to
register in the mind the ever evident fact. A guru is required to turn
our attention towards the ever experienced consciousness.
"Once our attention is turned towards the consciousness, we can know
more about the nature of this consciousness. It pervades the thoughts
of various forms. Itself is formless. The formless consciousness
illumines all thought forms. And being formless, it is limitless."
To this I add, if there is a knower of consciousness, go further and
know the knower. Know thyself.
Ram
Yes, this is a pretty good book about gurus.
I actually picked it up for 25cents at a garage sale when I was living
on Maui. I was not particularly interested in the personal odyssey of
Mr. Thompson, but I was eager to see what he had to say about Laxmana
Swami and Anamalai Swami as I had also seen them in the '90s in Tiru.
Much to my surprise, Mr. Thompson displayed some degree of discernment
(yes only some) that is not commonly seen in these types of books.
Usually writers or teachers like him go on about how all teachers are
the same and all paths are the same, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. I
found the book somewhat informative about spiritual teachers, but in
my opinion it reads mostly like a spiritual resume that is intended to
lend credibility to himself as a teacher. I have not met him
personally, so I cannot speak to his understanding. Unfortunately, his
last teacher Mr. Gangolli passed away a few years ago. I would have
liked to have met him. He sounded like the real deal to me.
I found it interesting that at the end of the book he seems to have
come to a similar conclusion as myself that a good teacher must have
some authority behind him other than just his own mystical experiences
and personally concocted doctrine. He used a term that I like
regarding such teachers as being, "advaita mystics."
Basically, according to him, most western teachers fall into this
category of teachers. In general I think he does a pretty good job of
being somewhat objective about the various teachers that he spent time
with, aside from the fact that he considers several teachers to be his
gurus, who according to his own definitions would not have been good
choices as a good spiritual teacher.
We can learn many things from many teachers, but few are actually
qualified to help one realize the Self. He is one of the few teachers
around who questioned Papaji's proclamations to many people that they
were Self-realized. I also questioned this. It makes one wonder that
if the teacher is not realized, how can his dozens of students who
have gone on to become teachers, be realized, or help someone else be
free of Illusion and ego? Unfortunately most teachers don't teach
discernment or discrminination with regard to teachers and teachings
because they themselves do not excercise such discernment.
I was going to offer to send you my copy when I get back to Taos, but
I see you are in Oz and it would probably cost me more to send it to
you (I think aobut $13 USD) than what you can find it for on the
internet. I think it's worthwhile to skim through it and pass it on to
another.
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ram
observe how they accumulate ignorance. I find it interesting to see
that when they are very young they have very little attachment to
'things,' and as they get older they start thinking that things
provide happiness, and the lack of certain things, such as mama's
breast or blankey, make them unhappy. Maybe they're half right. ;~)
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Rodger
authorities it does not matter much who or what authority we stand
behind or stands behind us.
Gary
those no-nothings is saying the same thing. Knowing that you don't
know and that there isn't anything to know and nobody to know it.
Ram
Yes, that is where the verification in one's own experience comes in.
Ram
What does that mean to you Gary? It sounds kind of cliche.
I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain from your experience?
Surely you know where to cut or stitch or clamp or apply pressure as
needed, or hopefully someone does.
Don't really know about your knowing you don't know. Seems like
knowing to me.
Are not-knowing and the unknown the same?
Knowledge knows the known which is itself knowledge.
Not knowing seems more akin to ignorance, while the unknown, well...,
don't know about that (as a thing anyway), maybe it is the real
knower. Maybe not.
:O)
empty2
know the knower. Know thyself."
To which I would add, knower, knowing and known are products (forms)
of consciousness. If consciousness is formless, what is there to know
and who is there to know?
empty2
jumps into the ocean.....
...in a non-linear fashion, it never even was.
Ram
Nice. The intellect dissolving into the ocean of Reality is also
another principle usually not emphasized much in the west.
"One who realizes the supreme discards all objects such as name and
form and dwells as the embodiment of infinite consciousness and bliss"
- Shri Shankaracharya
Try it, you'll like it. What a minute, if all objects such as name and
form are discarded, who tries or likes what?
And Life goes on... until it doesn't.
> > > know the knower. Know thyself.- Hide quoted text -
Darren
Darren
Gary
Now that you have thanked everyone for their thoughts, I was wondering
where you were taking this and what your thoughts might be at this
point.
Gary
Richard
On Mar 11, 7:32 pm, empty2 <pldre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"To this I add, if there is a knower of consciousness, go further and
>
> know the knower. Know thyself."
>
> To which I would add, knower, knowing and known are products (forms)
> of consciousness. If consciousness is formless, what is there to know
> and who is there to know?
>
I'm surprised MT that you would jump levels on me in typical neo-
Advaita style. :)
Who is there to know? The Jiva.
What is there to know? That they are not the limited Jiva but are
indeed as you say, formless consciousness (interpreted through
ignorance).
Wouldn't you say?
Richard
Right after posting the above, I coincidentally and unintentionally
came upon this:
Q. If enlightenment happens, by which I mean the disappearance of the
notion of the personal self, who is there to know and to state that it
has happened?
Dennis Waite: Enlightenment is the event in the mind of the person
when self-ignorance is dispelled once and for all. Subsequently, it is
known with certainty that ‘who-I-really-am’ is not the mind or person
but the non-dual Consciousness. Nevertheless, the appearance and
functioning of the person remains until the death of that body. It is
Consciousness, functioning through that mind which ‘knows’.
Your problem is the habitual one of confusing absolute and relative
reality. From the standpoint of absolute reality there is only
Consciousness (and enlightenment has no meaning); from the standpoint
of the world, there are objects and people (some of whom are
enlightened).
empty2
So hopefully that saves me from having to make the effort to answer
you, after a long and tiring day.
...Tho I had been thinking to comment on your tete-a-tete with Rodger
over zere. Rodger's quite right in that there is nothing else than
what is at any given moment in total. When/if there isn't anything
being perceived, as pointed out above, there is no perceiver either,
let alone talk of Advaita or anything else....... so *this* is the
form of consciousness, without which there is no such thing as
consciousness as such. From within this form, formless consciousness,
jiva, an ultimate knower, knowing and known, etc. are just concepts.
I'm reminded of Nisargadatta saying that his meditation/concentration
itself had manifested as the world. Meditation on one point or none...
(or Godzen's 'radiance')...is still perception....... what's the
difference between that and perception of the 'world'? They are one
and the same - 100% concentration...... which is what consciousness
is. Not something to be attained but what always is, regardless of its
focus.
Identifying as the meditator, concentrator, perceiver or knower,
however is, as we say, the deluded attempt to usurp ownership of that
to which no such concept can possibly apply...... even though that
'ego' is no less consciousness itself as form than anything else.
Richard
I like your latest post, Patrick (happy St. you day). Sorry to hear
you had a tiring day. Hopefully it was an exception.
What I think you and Rodger are saying is that all is consciousness.
"Everything that is is consciousness", says "The Yoga Vasistha". So
how can I disagree with you, Rodger, and "The Yoga Vasistha"? I
can't.
The point of contention lies in the interpretation of "name and form".
You, I think, say they are consciousness. I am trying to say they are
superimposed upon pure consciousness due to maya. They don't exist as
Pure Consciousness which is nameless and formless.
You say, "When/if there isn't anything being perceived,...there is no
perceiver either, let alone talk of Advaita or anything else....... so
*this* is the form of consciousness, without which there is no such
thing as consciousness as such. From within this form, formless
consciousness, jiva, an ultimate knower, knowing and known, etc. are
just concepts."
Here is where I am confused. Are you saying something like "Form is
emptiness, emptiness is form"? Yes, there is only the one. Yet
empirically there are trees, dogs, people, all enlivened by that
formless ubiquitous One. All mistaken for independent self reliant
entities by that One and unnoticed when there is, as you state, no
perceiver. Like the blind men describing the elephant, depends on
point of view, absolute or relative. Mixing the two produces, imo, an
unrealistic hybrid. Like the guy who mated the shitsu
with a bulldog and ended up with some bullshits.
Rodger
one.Or,oneness.Or,unicity or consciousness.Or,Bozo.
Everything that is is consciousness...purely.Or,'pure consciousness'.
'Pure Consciousness',as opposed to some consciousness that isn't pure,
is purely an interpretation of consciousness.Consciousness
superimposes upon itself some form of consciousness which it
really,really is as opposed to some form it really,really
isn't.But,really,all of that is maya,which is a form of consciousness.
Trees,dogs and people are all'enlivenments'...movements of one,as
one...as one consciousness or whatever.
Name and form can only exist as 'Pure Consciousness' as everything
that is is consciousness,in one form or another.
The emerging form results in no division or separation in
consciousness...consciousness remains 'pure'
i.e.,undivided...whole...one.
The more things change the more they stay the
same...pure,undivided,whole...one consciousness.
Richard
I hope what I'm saying is clear. I'm talking of viewpoints. Ways of
seeing or not really seeing what is.
The rope looked like a snake, had all the appearance of a snake, so I
took it to be a snake. I picked up a stick to hit the snake with and
it turned out that what appeared to be a stick but was actually a
snake.
Optical illusions caused by imperfect and conditioned minds.
Rodger
Richard
Think that a rope is a snake and you'll have needless fear. Identify
with form, and the fear of mortality and 'other' results.
See the rope as rope, identify with the formless, no mortality or
'other', no problem. You are already beyond body/mind and not limited
by the walls of flesh.
Pantheism sees the universe as God. Panentheism sees God outside and
also within the universe.
Beyond form and formlessness, beyond outside and within, beyond
duality and nonduality, beyond beyond and not beyond, is who you are.
Rodger
empty2
"Here is where I am confused. Are you saying something like "Form is
emptiness, emptiness is form"? Yes, there is only the one. Yet
empirically there are trees, dogs, people, all enlivened by that
formless ubiquitous One. All mistaken for independent self reliant
entities by that One and unnoticed when there is, as you state, no
perceiver."
In trying to describe consciousness as 'one thing' doing the
enlivening, mistaking and unnoticing of all the other things, you make
it just another thing - in other words the same as them. So no wonder
there's confusion.
You also say:
"I am trying to say they are
superimposed upon pure consciousness due to maya. They don't exist as
Pure Consciousness which is nameless and formless."
What is this Pure Consciousness that these apparently separate things
are superimposed upon? Is there any such thing as consciousness
without an object? No. The only consciousness is the simultaneous
appearance of objects and the perception thereof - being one whole,
not two parts.
When/where there is only 'one' whole, there is no such concept as
'whole' or 'parts' either; there is no question or questioner; there
is no difference between is and isn't, nor even the existence of these
two concepts either.
On another note:
Isn't it interesting to note that all this activity, the exhaustion of
another long and tiring day, all this perceiving...... has such a
limited 'battery life', - quite unsustainable without the 'recharge'
of the nothingness of sleep every few hours....... waking again,
totally refreshed with all the tiredness gone?
Richard
Thanks for the reply. I value you input and admit I am always
learning, don't have it down yet (I'm not 'established') and value and
appreciate your input, knowledge, and experience.
I'll intersperse my response among your words below.
On Mar 18, 9:41 am, empty2 <pldre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Richard, you say:
>
> "Here is where I am confused. Are you saying something like "Form is
> emptiness, emptiness is form"? Yes, there is only the one. Yet
> empirically there are trees, dogs, people, all enlivened by that
> formless ubiquitous One. All mistaken for independent self reliant
> entities by that One and unnoticed when there is, as you state, no
> perceiver."
>
> In trying to describe consciousness as 'one thing' doing the
> enlivening, mistaking and unnoticing of all the other things, you make
> it just another thing - in other words the same as them. So no wonder
> there's confusion.
Absolutely correct. I tend to conceptualize....a failing of mine which
I'll work on. I don't know any way to write, speak, or think without
conceptualizing, objectifying, and dualizing. When infrequently not in
these activities, such results do not occur.
>
> You also say:
>
> "I am trying to say they are
> superimposed upon pure consciousness due to maya. They don't exist as
> Pure Consciousness which is nameless and formless."
>
> What is this Pure Consciousness that these apparently separate things
> are superimposed upon? Is there any such thing as consciousness
> without an object? No. The only consciousness is the simultaneous
> appearance of objects and the perception thereof - being one whole,
> not two parts.
I used a misnomer. According to Nisargadatta Maharaj, consciousness
comes and goes with "the meat body". And, says he, there is that which
was present before, during and after the mind/body briefly struts its
nonsense. I was trying to describe Brahman or Parabrahman (depending
upon your frame of reference).
>
> When/where there is only 'one' whole, there is no such concept as
> 'whole' or 'parts' either; there is no question or questioner; there
> is no difference between is and isn't, nor even the existence of these
> two concepts either.
Yes indeed, Patrick.
>
> On another note:
>
> Isn't it interesting to note that all this activity, the exhaustion of
> another long and tiring day, all this perceiving...... has such a
> limited 'battery life', - quite unsustainable without the 'recharge'
> of the nothingness of sleep every few hours....... waking again,
> totally refreshed with all the tiredness gone?
Lately I seem to have the weird sleep pattern of barely sleeping one
night and sleeping lengthely the next, alternating. Perhaps it shows
up in my posts.
All the best,
Richard
Darren
experience of awakening I'm not sure how I will know how to become
aware of the oneness.
Gary
Enlightened see enlightened..
How do you judge? My experience in such things is the guru with the
best scam wins.
Of course, others have more positive views and I suggest that they may
have been in a better position to judge such things.
In other words, it takes one to know one.
IMNSHO
Mahakali
you will never be sure of anything because, in this world, everything
has got its own opposite or, if you prefer, you can posit anything
against anything else. The only "thing" of which you can be sure is
Consciousness against which the grand play of Maya is being
manifested..even this dialogue.
The realization that the world we think we live in is not real may
come as a disappointment and feelings of sadness or euphoria may
follow suite...but that is part of the manifested reality too. The
only certainty is Consciousness.
Best wishes with your guru
Kali
PS: IMHO, I've noticed that the best gurus are the dead ones because
they do not cause too many scandals or give too much trouble.