No More Secret Knowledge?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Menon!

 

You mentioned in an earlier post (re: Dhumavati sadhana) that: "The

age of 'Secret Sadhana,' except in dangerous practices where personal

guidence is called for, is over."

 

Later you added, "what is the upadesha? It is a knowledgable person

imparting the info of what how why and when to a seeker. It is written

nowhere that it has to be by word of mouth, though that may be

advisable considering the intricacies in pronunciation of mantras."

 

And so, may I once again raise the "problem" of the Guru? Obviously,

both orthodox and Tantric forms of Hinduism (forgive my imprecision)

would agree that it is important for the seeker to have a Guru. Most

written Tantras are absolutely clear on the point that their teachings

are not effective unless transmitted through the Guru.

 

And whenever the subject arises here, there is always a rash of

postings containing quotes from famous Swamis and so on, all

unequivocally insisting upon the need for a guru. But then again, if

this is true, then the vast majority of Hindus -- who do not have

gurus -- are effectively cut off from the promises of their religion.

 

Does this mean that all of those individual jivas are simply not

evolved to the point where they need a Guru? Or is asking a Swami

whether a guru is needed, kind of like asking a Catholic priest

whether a priest is necessary in communicating with God -- of course

he will say "Yes, absolutely!" Granted, not all swamis are gurus, and

not all gurus are swamis. But they are certainly all guardians of

tradition.

 

And here you make an important point of the role of the guru -- s/he

is ultimately a teacher: "The knowledgable person should impart all he

has learnt. That is all." The value of the Guru system, as I

understand it, is that your teacher gives you one-on-one attention,

constantly assessing your progress and tailoring her/his teachings to

your particular needs. This is, as you noted, essential in some of the

more dangerous physical practices -- but most seekers are simply not

engaged in such practices.

 

Another issue is the "distant guru." I have met a number of very wise

and learned Hindus who say that they've never actually met their guru

in person, or that they've only seen the guru via occasional brief

encounters, or even only at a distance, at mass gatherings. In these

cases, even though there is a living, human guru, there is no

one-on-one interaction or teaching. To take this point even further,

many Hindus consider various deceased person whom they never met to be

gurus. Certainly, both of these models are straying from the original

concept.

 

You make another important point: "In the present day of written media

and internet, according to me one can find knowledgable persons

anywhere. The word of mouth was used when these media were not

available."

 

This is true. The knowledge we are speaking of was, for most of its

history, an oral tradition. Personal transmission was the *only*

transmission possible. In historical times, this knowledge was finally

set down in writing, but it remained -- as with the Latin Bible for

most of modern European history -- the secret knowledge of an elite

few. Most of the material was in Sanskrit rather than any widely

spoken vernacular, and -- even if one could read, and understood

Sanskrit -- one could not go to the bookstore or library to read this

material. This was the situation for the entire vast stretch of Indiam

history -- it only changed in the last 100 years.

 

In the early 20th century, printed editions of the Hindu and Tantric

scriptures began to circulate in larger numbers, although they were

known only to an educated elite. Only in the past 50 years have

popular volumes become available to "the masses" -- most of whom, in

India, still cannot read, and require oral transmission: popular

movies, theatre troupes, and the stories from the epics and Puranas,

told by older generations to the children, etc.

 

But very little information is still "secret," as you point out. Even

the so-called "shadow language" that veils some Tantras is usually

clarified in footnotes nowadays. That's why I posted the more modern

views of Mother Meera a couple of weeks ago (see Post #1531). In

part, She said:

 

"In exceptional circumstances a guru might be necessary, even vital

for spiritual development. Generally, [however,] it is best to pray to

the Supreme directly, or approach Him through one of His divine

incarnations. That is more useful."

 

The "exceptional circumstances," she later explains, would be where a

truly traditional guru-chela relationship is possible, with the chela

basically engaging in 24/7 service to the guru. Other than that, the

relationship is too shallow -- a picture of a "mass guru" like Satya

Sai Baba, with tens of thousands of devotees, hanging on the devotee's

wall, is really more of a focus and inspiration than a real guru.

Wouldn't a picture of Devi or Shiva accomplish much the same thing?

 

Mother Meera, for one, says yes: "At this time [in history], it is not

necessary to have that kind of a [guru/chela] relationship to reach

God. It is helpful, but true aspiration, sincerity and love will lead

you to God. ... If you have confidence in your faith, it is not

necessary to have a living Guru."

 

It seems to me that this is probably true, especially in Bhakti. From

your posts, I think you would agree? And even in Tantra, where so much

of the "secret knowledge" has been so widely disseminated. With so

many sham "Tantric gurus" is circulation, it would seem that the chela

would have better odds simply using their "inner guru" -- right

discretion and a strong surrender to God/dess -- to proceed along the

path. Again, as you note, this is probably ill-advised if the student

is proceeding along the path of Aghora or the 5 M's etc -- but short

of that, it seems you can accomplish quite a lot by using the

materials and human advice not so widely available in books and via

interaction on the Web, etc. Better than getting stuck with a fake --

and certainly a lot better than doing nothing at all.

 

That's mere do paise, at least ;-) ... I'd welcome any and all

comments from other members?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe