Is Guru required?

November 9, 1999

>"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n

>Tue, 09 Nov 1999 15:27:52 IST

>

>Dear Friends,

>

>Tim Gerchmez <core1 says

>

>" Not everyone needs or desires a Guru, and not everyone can find one even

>if they do."

>

>This is not correct. We dont accept intuition as a valid means of knowledge

>as intuition is subjective. And there is no way to know whether one's

>intuition is correct. Intuition is only speculative and it cannot be called

>knowledge. For knowledge of the self to take place clearly and without

>doubt

>study of the Vedas are necessary under a Guru who knows the sampradaya.

>Thats why Mundaka Upanishad clearly states that the one who knows the

>limitation of karma and seeks the limitless should approach a Guru who is

>Shrotriyam ( Well versed in the Scriptures and Sampradaya) and

>BrahmaNishtam

>( committed to the Vision of the vedas).

>

>Also almost all our Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are presented as a

>Dialogue

>between a Guru and Shishya. It clearly shows the necessity of a Guru

>because

>studying Vedanta by oneself, one can arrive at wrong conclusions. So if the

>Vedantas are to be a valid means of knowledge then they have to be handled

>by a proper Guru. Guru in absentia etc. won't work. In fact in the

>tradition

>there is a saying that one should not do this atma Vichara by oneself.

>Thats

>why even a great accomplished person like Narada is shown as approaching

>Sanath kumara to gain this knowledge in the chandogya Upanishad.

>

>That Gurus are not easily available in this age does'nt mean that a Guru is

>not necessary. Even Ramana has repeatedly said that a Guru is necessary for

>gaining this knowledge. If the Self can be the Guru then nobody will have a

>problem because it is available all the time to all. In fact the Seeker

>being the sought in this case, he/she requires an external agency to point

>out his/her real nature like the dependence on a mirror to see one's own

>eyes.

>

Namaste,

I think this is a correct interpretation of the Sampradaaya. A Guru IS

NECESSARY. Only he can recognize your true nature and formulate for your the

best path. Shri Totakaacharya was left alone by Bhagavatpaada because he

(Adi Shankara) knew that he was absorbed in the self for the most part.

Similarly, he recognized the station on which each of his Shishyaas stood on

and guided them appropriately.

But then there are examples galore of several saints who realized the

Supreme Self without the aid of any Guru. Bhakti saints from the Islamic

period come immediately to mind. According to Smartha Sampradaaya, what is

it that these saints realized as many of them had no Vedic shikshan. Some of

them were even outcastes. What did they realize ?

ashish

November 9, 1999

Dear Friends,

Tim Gerchmez <core1 says

" Not everyone needs or desires a Guru, and not everyone can find one even

if they do. The best path can be found through experimentation, although

that could take a long time (and often does). But Gurus are few and far

between in the U.S. If a path could only be found through a Guru, then

Advaita would be limited only to those who could find one (perhaps much

easier to find 100-300 years ago, not so easy in 1999). But the Self Itself

can be considered a guru, the "still small voice." Some call this voice

intuition. If the soul is ripe, a Guru may not be necessary."

This is not correct. We dont accept intuition as a valid means of knowledge

as intuition is subjective. And there is no way to know whether one's

intuition is correct. Intuition is only speculative and it cannot be called

knowledge. For knowledge of the self to take place clearly and without doubt

study of the Vedas are necessary under a Guru who knows the sampradaya.

Thats why Mundaka Upanishad clearly states that the one who knows the

limitation of karma and seeks the limitless should approach a Guru who is

Shrotriyam ( Well versed in the Scriptures and Sampradaya) and BrahmaNishtam

( committed to the Vision of the vedas).

Also almost all our Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are presented as a Dialogue

between a Guru and Shishya. It clearly shows the necessity of a Guru because

studying Vedanta by oneself, one can arrive at wrong conclusions. So if the

Vedantas are to be a valid means of knowledge then they have to be handled

by a proper Guru. Guru in absentia etc. won't work. In fact in the tradition

there is a saying that one should not do this atma Vichara by oneself. Thats

why even a great accomplished person like Narada is shown as approaching

Sanath kumara to gain this knowledge in the chandogya Upanishad.

That Gurus are not easily available in this age does'nt mean that a Guru is

not necessary. Even Ramana has repeatedly said that a Guru is necessary for

gaining this knowledge. If the Self can be the Guru then nobody will have a

problem because it is available all the time to all. In fact the Seeker

being the sought in this case, he/she requires an external agency to point

out his/her real nature like the dependence on a mirror to see one's own

eyes.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

November 9, 1999

Hari Om:

I agree with the views expressed by Harshaji and Ashishji. The Vedic tradition

is a "Oral Tradition." Nothing was written and the emphasis was to keep and

nourish the "Guru-Shishya Sampradhyam." The saying, "90% perspiration and 10%

intution" also confirms that efforts and guidance are quite necessary. While

learning mathematics, my inutitive knowledge did change over time with more

learning and this is my experience.

Ram Chandran

November 9, 1999

Life teaches all of us ( in the living, we are taught).

We are taught simply by the act of living.

We are taught regardless by the guru.

either in the form of a man or the concept or idea of guru.

Guru can be the sky, a mountain, a stick, the ocean,

your worst enemy, your best friend or a word(s), even a sound.

Guru is that which fills the emptiness,

which is existence before the arrival of jnana.

The guru comes in many forms,

in concepts or non concepts.

What is the guru?

What is known beyond the mind?

If one were to truly define the guru,

that would not be the guru

but to point/indicate, we have the following:

It is an infinity that knows its infinity.

In THAT, there is no definition,

no designation, no form, no point of reference,

no self reference, no relativity.

It is a simple infinite IS-ness/AM-ness

from which all things arise.

If one could imagine being at the centre of a star

flashing rays out into an utter void,

this is merely an attempt in description.

The whole cosmos expands from that infinity.

(In infinity, how could there be a center?)

Though it seems to expand, to say it IS,

is closer to the truth. Its IS-ness (existence)

causes the expansion.

If one looks at the word guru, the word guru is made up of 2 sylables.

Gu means light and Ru means dark.

Hence, light flashing in the void.

Thus, the guru is the foundation of the whole cosmos,

and is the whole cosmos. It is beyond it.

To guru, there is no definition in infinity.

All is the one infinite.

There are not beings/objects, etc.

There are not possessions.

There are not stars or mountains.

There is nothing but THAT.

All things are guru's very self.

Thus, as mentioned above:

The guru can be anything or nothing

without contradiction.

You yourself are not different from that guru.

Thinking yourself as that which exists as that body

is like a disease that binds you to your finiteness.

Yet you cannot let go of your finiteness unless you see that you are

nothing,

- nothing but that very infinity and as such

are that self that you see there in the mirror

as well as everything else.

You must let go of the belief that you are nothing but the body.

You must stop identifying with the body as yourself.

You must identify with infinity as yourself.

In which all is, as well as your body.

That infinite self that you are knows no limitation

It is not bound by the body

or by mind, time or life.

It is the non-born eternal guru.

To close, a question:

if one were to know as the infinite -

would it not follow that that ONE -

could know nothing but infiniteness

which is its very nature.

In itself, would it not know nothing but itself? : )

November 9, 1999

At 03:27 PM 11/9/99 IST, you wrote:

>"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n

>That Gurus are not easily available in this age does'nt mean that a Guru is

>not necessary. Even Ramana has repeatedly said that a Guru is necessary for

>gaining this knowledge. If the Self can be the Guru then nobody will have a

>problem because it is available all the time to all. In fact the Seeker

>being the sought in this case, he/she requires an external agency to point

>out his/her real nature like the dependence on a mirror to see one's own

>eyes.

I'm sorry to have to disagree. There is nothing "external" that even

exists in the first place. A Guru can be helpful but is by no means

necessary for the attainment of "the goal." I personally know several who

have attained realization without the assistance of a Guru. In these

people the soul was ripe already, and one of them attained it through

kundalini, not even knowing what was happening until much later.

Whether or not this contradicts the Vedas or the Upanishads is irrelevant.

These scriptures were written long ago, not in the Living Now. The spirit

of Advaita Vedanta does not depend on any scriptures or writings or sayings

or anything else. The Truth is alive NOW, eternally. The scriptures are

for guidance only, not to be followed to the letter.

You mention "the seeker." Being a seeker is itself a hindrance. There is

nothing to seek, all that is needed is present already, has always been

Eternally present, and will always be Eternally present.

Hari OM,

Tim

-----

Visit "The Core" Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net

November 9, 1999

At 01:24 AM 11/10/99 +0800, you wrote:

>"su" <sulea

>

>Life teaches all of us ( in the living, we are taught).

>We are taught simply by the act of living.

>We are taught regardless by the guru.

>either in the form of a man or the concept or idea of guru.

>Guru can be the sky, a mountain, a stick, the ocean,

>your worst enemy, your best friend or a word(s), even a sound.

Yes, this is what I meant. Only a Guru in the "traditional sense" is not

absolutely necessary. Thank you Su.

>What is the guru?

This is a question everyone should be asking, not reading out of books!

>It is a simple infinite IS-ness/AM-ness

>from which all things arise.

And as such... the Guru can be anything, because everything is Brahman.

>Thus, as mentioned above:

>The guru can be anything or nothing

>without contradiction.

Try to explain this to someone who is lacking in experience. They will

insist that a Guru in the traditional sense is necessary, and there is a

fear of contradiction of the scriptures. But those who have gone beyond

the scriptures see them only as simple words for children.

>That infinite self that you are knows no limitation

>It is not bound by the body

>or by mind, time or life.

>It is the non-born eternal guru.

This is beautiful.

With Love,

Tim

-----

Visit "The Core" Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net

November 9, 1999

Please excuse me for writing something without reading the previous

postings on the subject. I am hurriedly trying up to wind up my stay in

the U.S. I opened my mailbox today and saw several letters with the

heading: Is Guru required? I am quickly posting below seven reasons why

Guru is required. All of this comes from my Essay on Guru:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/guru.html

1. Guru is God in human form, according to the sloka: guruur brahmA ... .

2. The fact that we are living in our own mental 'dream-world' has to be

told to us in our own 'dream-world'. This is what exactly the guru does,

because he 'lives' in our 'dream world' and also 'speaks' in our dream

world in the 'language' of our 'dream-world'.

3. It is only the guru who can make online corrections to our spiritual

path.

4. We all need a father-figure in person on whose lap we can cry about our

stumblings in the spiritual journey.

5. Even if we are unfaithful to our god of devotion, the guru 'saves' us

by adding his 'spiritually rich' appeal to our own prayers to God. cf.

Sive rushTe gurus-trAta ...

6. Our latent vAsanAs can be eradicated only by surrender to the feet of

the Lord. This is, in practice, achieved by surrendering to the guru and

obtaining his Grace.

7. Without a proper guru, nobody else can give us the emotional conviction

of the mahA-vAkyas: That Thou Art; and I am brahman. We can get only an

intellectual conviction from discussions with co-seekers of spirituality.

The heart-deep confirmation can come only from the guru. Swami Vivekananda

has dealt with this on numerous occasions.

I will certainly enlighten myself by reading the other postings before I

leave on my India trip next week. With regards and praNAms to all

advaitins,

Yours, profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The URL of my website has been simplified as

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access both my books from there.

November 9, 1999

On 11/9/99 at 11:05 AM Ashish Chandra wrote:

[...]

>Namaste,

>

>I think this is a correct interpretation of the Sampradaaya. A Guru IS

>NECESSARY. Only he can recognize your true nature and formulate for your

the

>best path. Shri Totakaacharya was left alone by Bhagavatpaada because he

>(Adi Shankara) knew that he was absorbed in the self for the most part.

>Similarly, he recognized the station on which each of his Shishyaas stood

on

>and guided them appropriately.

>

>But then there are examples galore of several saints who realized the

>Supreme Self without the aid of any Guru. Bhakti saints from the Islamic

>period come immediately to mind. According to Smartha Sampradaaya, what is

>it that these saints realized as many of them had no Vedic shikshan. Some

of

>them were even outcastes. What did they realize ?

>

>ashish

In Islam, the "keywords" are love and beauty. It is through love one can

realize that instead of a "mortal lover", the true love is for Allah. As a

lover will forget him/herself completely, the identity of the lover will be

annihilated in Allah and love remains. Whether called annihilation in love,

union of lover and beloved, it all denotes liberation or factual nonduality

(no idea of "I" and "otherness" can arise in the mind anymore). This path

of love doesn't require Guru or scriptures; when love has become so strong

that it becomes "a thing by itself", the insight arises spontaneously that

this love can only be for God.

Jan

November 10, 1999

On 11/10/99 at 1:00 PM Jaishankar Narayanan wrote:

>

>Dear Friends,

[...]

>

>Many Sages might have had this Self-knowledge from other traditions and

>without a Guru. But are they to be treated as an exception or a rule? I

>think they are all exceptions to the rule 'Guru is required'.

The conclusion that a Guru is required would always be true if no

difference is made between Guru (God) and Guru in human form. The

difference will diminish even further when acknowledging the fact that in

receiving initiations, it doesn't make a difference whether the Guru has

left the body or not. This point was mentioned by Purohit Swami in a

commentary on the Patanjali Sutras and emphasized repeatedly by Ramana

Maharshi.

It is always possible to see things from a different perspective, reversing

the conclusion. The amount of people requiring a Guru in human form is

larger than the amount of people who will spontaneously realize the Self.

The conclusion that therefore, a (human) Guru is required is only based on

counting numbers, leaving out other variables. One of those variables is

society. Every human being has some talents but they will only be

discovered in a society that recognizes them and in order to be recognized,

the talents have to be quite above average. If one considers spontaneous

realization a talent, in the Western society anyone realizing the Self at a

young age with the subsequent wish for solitary retreat would be diagnosed

as having a mental disorder to be treated in a mental institution;

spontaneous K. awakening and subsequent admission to a mental institution

happens frequently. The talent is present but in many cases, wasted.

The wish for lasting happiness is the drive for most undertakings and only

Self-realization will bring fulfillment. Where this wish, interpreted as

striving to increase material gain can lead to on a global scale, will

become clear when man made climatic change is proved beyond doubt and it

will be too late to reverse it. From this perspective, Self-realization for

the majority is a "must" as it is the only guarantee for "sane" democratic

decisions regarding stability and well-being on a global scale. Any

self-conscious intelligent species will automatically self-destruct when

gratifying the "whims of the mind" as the prime means to achieve lasting

happiness. So from an evolutionary perspective, Self-realization has to be

a talent, available in the majority but presently only spontaneously

manifesting in a minority.

>If you look at other traditions those who had this knowledge would have

>grown out of their mainstream religious traditions. Most religions

including

>Chritianity and Islam only promote a trip to heaven and so you cannot call

>these traditions as a spiritual tradition. Only in the Vedic tradition is

a

>Tecahing tradition and it has a proper methodology to teach its Vision.

So

>those who dont want to use this tradition and claim that knowledge can

take

>place by experimentation etc. are really the losers.

>

>with love and prayers,

>

>Jaishankar

>

This is true, especially in Christianity it has been practically impossible

to make any nondual statement and during the middle ages the inquisition

made many victims. Yet there are quite a few indications that many bible

texts have been tampered with, for the sole reason of gaining control over

the masses but nevertheless a few realized (like St. John of the Cross).

Despite the clarity and beauty of the Upanishads and its gifted

interpreters, this did not prevent the fact that in India other systems

could arise and gain popularity. In Spain, Islam was introduced by the

Moors but when some 400 years later they finally where defeated and driven

back to Africa, Christianity regained foothold. This, despite the fact that

Ibn El Arabi, an Islamic nondual realizer, was living in Spain... In India,

Islam remained, despite the fact that Vedanta gives a clear vision instead

of just an "afterlife" promise. Either a proper methodology and vision

isn't "enough" or one has to face the fact that from an evolutionary

perspective mankind is a failure...

---------------------------

Three Forms of Knowledge

Ibn El-Arabi of Spain instructed his followers in this most ancient

dictum:

There are three forms of knowledge. The first is intellectual knowledge,

which is in fact only

information and the collection of facts, and the use of these to arrive at

further intellectual concepts.

This is intellectualism.

Second comes the knowledge of states, which includes both emotional feeling

and strange states of being

in which man thinks that he has perceived something supreme but cannot

avail himself of it.

This is emotionalism.

Third comes real knowledge, which is called the Knowledge of Reality. In

this form,

man can perceive what is right, what is true, beyond the boundaries of

thought and sense.

Scholastics and scientists concentrate upon the first form of knowledge.

Emotionalists and experientalists use the second form. Others use the two

combined,

or either one alternatively. But the people who attain to truth are those

who know how to

connect themselves with the reality which lies beyond both these forms of

knowledge.

These are the real Sufis, the Dervishes who have Attained

-------

Jan

November 10, 1999

Dear Friends,

"Ashish Chandra" <ashvedantin wrote

" I think this is a correct interpretation of the Sampradaaya. A Guru IS

NECESSARY. Only he can recognize your true nature and formulate for your the

best path. Shri Totakaacharya was left alone by Bhagavatpaada because he

(Adi Shankara) knew that he was absorbed in the self for the most part.

Similarly, he recognized the station on which each of his Shishyaas stood on

and guided them appropriately.

But then there are examples galore of several saints who realized the

Supreme Self without the aid of any Guru. Bhakti saints from the Islamic

period come immediately to mind. According to Smartha Sampradaaya, what is

it that these saints realized as many of them had no Vedic shikshan. Some of

them were even outcastes. What did they realize ?"

Many Sages might have had this Self-knowledge from other traditions and

without a Guru. But are they to be treated as an exception or a rule? I

think they are all exceptions to the rule 'Guru is required'.

If you look at other traditions those who had this knowledge would have

grown out of their mainstream religious traditions. Most religions including

Chritianity and Islam only promote a trip to heaven and so you cannot call

these traditions as a spiritual tradition. Only in the Vedic tradition is a

Tecahing tradition and it has a proper methodology to teach its Vision. So

those who dont want to use this tradition and claim that knowledge can take

place by experimentation etc. are really the losers.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

November 10, 1999

Dear Friends,

"su" <sulea wrote

" Life teaches all of us ( in the living, we are taught).

We are taught simply by the act of living.

We are taught regardless by the guru.

either in the form of a man or the concept or idea of guru.

Guru can be the sky, a mountain, a stick, the ocean,

your worst enemy, your best friend or a word(s), even a sound."

Life can teach that which is in the realm of Perception and inference. But

what about the Self which is not available for both perception and

inference. Here there is a necessity for a Means of Knowledge like Vedanta

handled by a Guru.

Further Su wrote

" Guru is that which fills the emptiness,

which is existence before the arrival of jnana.

The guru comes in many forms,

in concepts or non concepts.

What is the guru?

What is known beyond the mind?

If one were to truly define the guru,

that would not be the guru

but to point/indicate, we have the following:

It is an infinity that knows its infinity.

In THAT, there is no definition,

no designation, no form, no point of reference,

no self reference, no relativity.

It is a simple infinite IS-ness/AM-ness

from which all things arise.

If one could imagine being at the centre of a star

flashing rays out into an utter void,

this is merely an attempt in description.

The whole cosmos expands from that infinity.

(In infinity, how could there be a center?)

Though it seems to expand, to say it IS,

is closer to the truth. Its IS-ness (existence)

causes the expansion.

If one looks at the word guru, the word guru is made up of 2 sylables.

Gu means light and Ru means dark.

Hence, light flashing in the void.

Thus, the guru is the foundation of the whole cosmos,

and is the whole cosmos. It is beyond it.

To guru, there is no definition in infinity.

All is the one infinite.

There are not beings/objects, etc.

There are not possessions.

There are not stars or mountains.

There is nothing but THAT.

All things are guru's very self.

Thus, as mentioned above:

The guru can be anything or nothing

without contradiction.

You yourself are not different from that guru.

Thinking yourself as that which exists as that body

is like a disease that binds you to your finiteness.

Yet you cannot let go of your finiteness unless you see that you are

nothing,

- nothing but that very infinity and as such

are that self that you see there in the mirror

as well as everything else.

You must let go of the belief that you are nothing but the body.

You must stop identifying with the body as yourself.

You must identify with infinity as yourself.

In which all is, as well as your body.

That infinite self that you are knows no limitation

It is not bound by the body

or by mind, time or life.

It is the non-born eternal guru.

To close, a question:

if one were to know as the infinite -

would it not follow that that ONE -

could know nothing but infiniteness

which is its very nature.

In itself, would it not know nothing but itself? : "

To know what is written above there is a need for a Guru. The existence of

infinite is not accepted by everyone and whether one is that infinite or not

has to be properly taught.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar.

November 10, 1999

Dear Tim,

you wrote:

" I'm sorry to have to disagree. There is nothing "external" that even

exists in the first place."

You are begging the question here. That 'there is nothing "external"' can be

known only after being exposed to the teaching by the Guru.

You wrote

" A Guru can be helpful but is by no means necessary for the attainment of

"the goal." I personally know several who have attained realization without

the assistance of a Guru. In these people the soul was ripe already, and

one of them attained it through kundalini, not even knowing what was

happening until much later."

You are mentioning their souls were ripe. What about others? Are these

people rules or exception? We are talking of the rule here not the

exceptions.

You wrote

" Whether or not this contradicts the Vedas or the Upanishads is irrelevant.

These scriptures were written long ago, not in the Living Now. The spirit

of Advaita Vedanta does not depend on any scriptures or writings or sayings

or anything else. The Truth is alive NOW, eternally. The scriptures are

for guidance only, not to be followed to the letter."

You have used the word Vedanta which means "the end portion of the Vedas',

the scripture in discussion. But you say its spirit does not depend on any

scripture. i dont understand you. Further Vedas are the only scriptures

which reveal the truth as Advaita clearly and repeatedly. Others might have

had some insights but nowhere there is living teaching tradition with proper

methodology to teach other than in the Vedic tradition. The truth is alive

NOW, eternally but how many know it. The scripture or Vedanta are not Guides

but a valid means of knowledge.

You wrote

" You mention "the seeker." Being a seeker is itself a hindrance. There is

nothing to seek, all that is needed is present already, has always been

Eternally present, and will always be Eternally present."

You are again begging the question. Whatever you have mentioned above can be

known only after the Guru reveals it. We are not talking about people who

already have this knowledge but those who have to gain the knowledge that

'There is no seeker, really'.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar.

Hari OM,

Tim

-----

Visit "The Core" Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net

------

Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

<< text3.html >>

November 10, 1999

Thanks Jan for your informative posting with thoughtful observations. Let me add

my understanding of the observations that you are refering with respect to

Hinduism and India:

Jan wrote:

...................

>Despite the clarity and beauty of the Upanishads and its gifted

>interpreters, this did not prevent the fact that in India other systems

>could arise and gain popularity. In Spain, Islam was introduced by the

>Moors but when some 400 years later they finally where defeated and driven

>back to Africa, Christianity regained foothold. This, despite the fact that

>Ibn El Arabi, an Islamic nondual realizer, was living in Spain... In India,

>Islam remained, despite the fact that Vedanta gives a clear vision instead

>of just an "afterlife" promise. Either a proper methodology and vision

>isn't "enough" or one has to face the fact that from an evolutionary

>perspective mankind is a failure...

For India, the comparison should be between closely associated religions such

as Hinduism and Buddhism. Buddhism was very popular and was spread from the

length of India for many centuries. However in later years, Buddhism was

practically driven out of India just like Islam from Spain.

The influence of other religions in India is minimal inspite of forceful

conversions. In addition, the followers of Islam and Christianity did not

abandon the Hindu Customs and Traditions even after conversion. In South India,

worshiping Jesus was just like Krishna or Rama in Hindu style. The beauty is

that those religions did not change the fundamental Hindu approach to "God

realization." Allah and Jesus were added to the family of millions of Gods! One

of the failure of our mankind is not to recognize that human perception is never

free from errors.

regards,

Ram Chandran

November 10, 1999

Thank you for the clarification Ram. Perhaps I should have defined "India"

as the state before it was divided into India and Pakistan. According to my

dictionary, the area that is now Pakistan was the site of the Indus valley

civilization, the earliest known culture on the Indian subcontinent. It is

likely, Vedic culture will have flourished there too. Indeed it is easy to

err, especially if one wants to keep a post concise. In this respect, it is

perhaps useful to add that the knowledge of "attaining" moksha/nirvana

always has remained available in the West, despite inquisition, be it to a

small minority. The knowledge survived by using symbolic language,

describing how to remove all "shells of the onion" plus the "road marks"

one will meet on the journey. A very steep learning curve, therefore

secret, but highly practical...

Regards,

Jan

On 11/10/99 at 12:54 PM Ram Chandran wrote:

>"Ram Chandran" <chandran

>

>Thanks Jan for your informative posting with thoughtful observations. Let

me add my understanding of the observations that you are refering with

respect to Hinduism and India:

>

>Jan wrote:

>..................

>>Despite the clarity and beauty of the Upanishads and its gifted

>>interpreters, this did not prevent the fact that in India other systems

>>could arise and gain popularity. In Spain, Islam was introduced by the

>>Moors but when some 400 years later they finally where defeated and

driven

>>back to Africa, Christianity regained foothold. This, despite the fact

that

>>Ibn El Arabi, an Islamic nondual realizer, was living in Spain... In

India,

>>Islam remained, despite the fact that Vedanta gives a clear vision

instead

>>of just an "afterlife" promise. Either a proper methodology and vision

>>isn't "enough" or one has to face the fact that from an evolutionary

>>perspective mankind is a failure...

>

>For India, the comparison should be between closely associated religions

such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Buddhism was very popular and was spread

from the length of India for many centuries. However in later years,

Buddhism was practically driven out of India just like Islam from Spain.

>

>The influence of other religions in India is minimal inspite of forceful

conversions. In addition, the followers of Islam and Christianity did not

abandon the Hindu Customs and Traditions even after conversion. In South

India, worshiping Jesus was just like Krishna or Rama in Hindu style. The

beauty is that those religions did not change the fundamental Hindu

approach to "God realization." Allah and Jesus were added to the family of

millions of Gods! One of the failure of our mankind is not to recognize

that human perception is never free from errors.

>

>regards,

>

>Ram Chandran

>

>>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available

at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

November 11, 1999

Dear Tim,

You wrote

"Do you not find it strange that it is known here, and this body/mind has

never been exposed to the presence of a living human Guru?"

Accepting that you have indeed gained a clear and doubtless knowledge or to

be correct accepting that you got rid of ignorance without a Guru I would

still say that you are not the right role model for all and you are indeed

an exception. In fact even with a proper Guru's teaching most people dont

understand this simple truth. So we have to say that a 'Guru is required'.

You wrote

"There is no "rule" or "exception." There is only Truth. The question was

put: Is a living human Guru necessary? A discussion on the matter ensued.

There has been mental disagreement (which is in fact irrelevant to what the

truth really is). Making a distinction between "rules" and "exceptions" is

in fact a typical reaction of the mind; the mind sees only duality. In

truth, there are neither rules nor exceptions, but simply What Is."

I think you are mixing up reality and day to day life. If I can continue in

the same vein I will add there is no guru no shishya in reality. But thats

not the point. Again I will add that we are discussing about the necessity

of a Guru for the one who is still ignorant.

You wrote

"How does your mind define "knowledge?" Does it define as loss of

ignorance? That is true knowledge. Or does it define as accumulation of

facts? That is increase in ignorance."

I agree with what you say. All knowledge is really only removal of

ignorance. About "what is knowledge?" I will post seperately.

You wrote

"I gained it without a Guru. If I can do so, others can as well."

I will ask what is the probability of others gaining without a Guru? I think

it is very small. So as a rule 'Guru is required" and there are always

exceptions to the rule.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar.

November 17, 1999

>"su" <sulea

>

>Life teaches all of us ( in the living, we are taught).

>We are taught simply by the act of living.

>We are taught regardless by the guru.

>either in the form of a man or the concept or idea of guru.

>Guru can be the sky, a mountain, a stick, the ocean,

>your worst enemy, your best friend or a word(s), even a sound.

Dear friends,

My internet link has been down for more than a week now,

so here is my belated contribution, to the above subject.

I recall someone asking Dattatreya as to whom was his guru.

He indicated he had 24, including, a python snake, a dog,

a prostitute, a bird, the wind etc....or was this debate settled ?

~dave

November 17, 1999

When we were raising funds for a temple someone asked me - if God is there

every where, why do we need a temple?

My answer was - yes if I have clear understanding and reallization that God

is there everywhere then I donot need a separate temple, since I see temple

everywhere. Obviously with that catholic understanding, I cannot be greedy,

I cannot be hate anyone, I cannot be selfish etc. All the negative

tendencies automatically dropout.

To see and appreciate God everywhere requires a clear frame of mind from my

part. To gain that maturity of understanding only, I have to start at some

place, and the best place to start is a place of worship with at least

intellectual understanding that God is everywhere.

If one has the frame of mind similar to that of Bhagavaan Dattatraya, then

he sees guru everywhere - the mind is huble enough that it is always ne a

learning mind. The whole nature manefest not only a place of worship but a

place of learning. To gain that frame of mind only I need a teacher who can

teach me in a language that uplifts my m ind to that high pedestal. Once I

have that frame of mind, yes I can see teacher everywhere and in everything.