Guru Model -Avram

[Guest guest]

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

 

thank you for this. very interesting. to me what Guru means to an

individual is dependent on the definition. i have read Guru defined

as Gu means darkness and Ru means light. so the Guru is one who

illuminates or brings light to our darkness. by this definition i

guess just about anyone, anything, and/or everything can be a Guru.

 

the one sentence below i definitely think is true is that the honest

Guru is rare. that is the great blessing of having Amma here now.

 

JAI MA

 

Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote:

> This may not be the time or the place for this, but I came across

it and it

> would be relevant to some, controversial to others, but food for

thought for

> all:

> The guru model works its spell on an immature mind not a seasoned

> one. Yes, we will still follow gurus, teachers, prophets, masters

> long into the future (it is an epigenetic predisposition), but

> hopefully with one important caveat: the gurus are NOT perfect. We

> finally realized that lesson during the Protestant Reformation

> (remember the Pope is not infallible!) when it came to

Christianity

> and guessed what blossomed because of it? SCIENCE.

>

> Now the guru world must undergo its purge, its protest movement,

its

> Lutheran revelations. And when the dust settles, mysticism can be

> divorced from myth, masters acknowledged as mortal, and

enlightenment

> understood as progressive (not permanent) insight. Until that is

done

> we live in a truly CON-fused time, where rationality flirts with

> silliness and sincere devotion with gross gullibility. The Guru is

> DEAD. And, to echo Nietzsche, we have killed him. We killed him by

> taking his turban off, by shaving his beard, by seeing him naked.

And

> what did we find? Ourselves.

>

> The guru is a poser and, as along as we make pretenses about who

and

> what we are, we will hide behind these projected "masks," these

> guises in which we cloak our weaknesses and our fears. The guru is

> dead and we killed him.

>

> But fear not, we will invent another guru in his absence, just as

> Voltaire warned that man would invent religion even if none

existed.

> Why? Because we have to. We cannot stand the silence of our own

being

> when confronted with the silence of the universe screaming back at

> us. Lonely creatures looking for a way out, for a meaning, for a

> purpose, for a father.... And the guru is merely us projecting all

> that we wish and desire upon another. God forbid we do cast such

> projetiles upon our own being. We couldn't withstand the

intensity;

> we couldn't withstand the responsibility.

>

> But what we couldn't withstand the most would be our severe

> disappointment. Because no matter what, our "image" would be less

> than our "reality." Far easier to shatter the image of another

than

> to shatter the image of ourselves. And in pieces and in ruins we

will

> find our fallen gurus and like shattered shards from a reflecting

> glass we will once again see our own face, our own psyche, our own

> soul. And in those broken pieces the abyss awaits us--infinite,

> eternal, unknowing.

>

> The guru is a temporary fix, but based upon an eternal need. For

that

> reason, dead gurus don't decompose. They resurrect in new forms:

from

> Zorasterianism to Judaism to Christianity to Mormonism to

Scientology

> to Eckankar to Radhasoami.

>

> The killer of the guru kills his idealized self and along with it

any

> hopes of a dreamy paradise. There is only one solution to all of

this

> yin and yang dread, but the honest guru (oxymoron alert) is rare.

How

> many gurus would commit the image suicide that is necessary to

> liberate the disciple from his "idea fixe"?

>

> It is a riddle of course. Because any guru that would allow such

an

> image in the first place has already betrayed the disciple.

>

> The guru image is suicide, a cutting off of one's own integrity,

> one's own power, one's own responsiblity.

>

> And, yet, the guru image is nowhere outside. It is part and parcel

of

> our own neurological make-up.

>

> We are both the disciple and the guru and until we stop

> distinguishing the two we will languish in the half-way house for

the

> devotionally mad. And in that madness we will split the universe

into

> two and our own psyche into compartments.

>

> Why?

>

> Because our very need to understand, to grasp, to model is itself

a

> communicative lie.

>

> A bubble's efforts will always be exploded when it tries to

encompass

> the ocean.

>

> Pop! Burst! Break!

>

> Broken

>

> from a post by Dave Lane,

> re-posted here: Avram, of course

>

>

>