Humanity of Guru

[Guest guest]

"Kintu" means "but." In this case, but "not God." He

is God but not God. What is the alternative but human?

By human, we mean not ominiscient, not omnipotent, and

not infallible.

 

Nowhere did anyone say "kintu" meant "ordinary human

being." Try to understand. The guru is, as a friend

once said, the symbiosis of God and man.

 

The greatest difficulty in overcoming sectarian and

fundamentalist consciousness is this attribution of

that which pertains only to the Supreme Deity to the

guru.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Jan Brzezinski <jankbrz> wrote:

> "Kintu" means "but." In this case, but "not God." He

> is God but not God. What is the alternative but human?

> By human, we mean not ominiscient, not omnipotent, and

> not infallible.

 

You are drawing too much out of a simple word, taking it out of the

context of the verse in which it is found, as well as the entire

verse out of the global context of the song. The entire song is about

the guru's transcendental qualities; it is not concerned at all with

his allegedly human qualities. If "kintu" is to be taken to introduce

a contrast of the type you mention, then we should have seen

something in the song mentioning these human qualities i.e. - he is

the most confidential servitor of the Lord, though he was born in a

low class family, but still I offer him my respectful obeisances." Do

you see anything like that there? I don't. All it says is that he

is "saakShaaddharitvena" or of the same nature or quality as Hari -

that certainly implies that he is not Hari, but that isn't what I am

contesting here.

 

> Nowhere did anyone say "kintu" meant "ordinary human

> being." Try to understand. The guru is, as a friend

> once said, the symbiosis of God and man.

 

Your own words:

 

"How much more inspiring and glorious it is to have a _human_

guru who has shown the way by struggling with the

negative aspects of material entanglement and

succeeding! "

 

and

 

"The humanity of the guru is the _kintu_ in kintu

prabhor yaH priya eva."

 

Since no one is contesting that the guru is not God (because saying

that he is God would be mayaavaada), the issue obviously is whether

or not we are meant to think of him in ordinary human terms, and

that's exactly how I read your objections: within the context of the

discussion just proximal to it.

 

I am not denying that a guru can have or have had human

fallibilities; nor am I saying that he does have them. All I am

saying, again, is that a mature disciple does not consider these when

he sees his guru. Just as one does not enter a battle without being

angry, one does not worship a guru without being appropriately

worshipful. We may read inspiring stories of other saadhana-siddhas

who surmount their personal failings to become advanced devotees, but

those devotees are not our gurus, and we do not meditate on such

mundane qualities in our own guru. Like I said, if you continue to

dwell on such things in the person who serves as your guru, then

either he is not qualified to be your guru, or your senses are not

appropriately situated to worship him. Those are high standards, I

realize, but gurus should be held to high standards. More than that,

it is also, to some extent, an issue of culture - guru means guru, to

whom one must eventually seek shelter. This is unlike the

Western "pick and choose what I like" mentality, which seeks to use a

guru's alleged human failings (he was talking for his time, he was

influenced by others) as a flimsy excuse to reject any teachings of

his which are incompatible with one's personal world view.

 

> The greatest difficulty in overcoming sectarian and

> fundamentalist consciousness

 

Please. I liked that sort of intellectual cowardice better when it

came in the form of, "Oh Prabhu, you are so offensive, so I won't

bother addressing any otherwise reasonable objection you offer." It

seems to be the secular academics' dharma these days to denounce any

who disagree with them as "sectarian" or "fundamentalist," while

presuming to maintain a position of neutrality, a position that is

false. For all their claims of scientific neutrality, I have never

met an academic who wasn't obviously biased towards promoting his own

agenda, even when the evidence clearly did not support it. Argue if

you wish, but don't use dismissive labels to get around the inherent

weaknesses in your own arguments.

 

regards,

 

- K