True Guru <---HERE'S A GOOD CASE STUDY

[Guest guest]

Here is my humble opinion:

 

One's true guru is oneself. One's realself is what one is longing to be

with and no matter what they say, only by the grace of the self is the

self known. The person in this case should concentrate his mind and heart

on the supreme self and listen to his mind and heart and ask himself,

which one of these masters he really relates to. His heart and mind will

answer his question.

 

>From your text, I have a feeling that your true guru is Swami Bon, the

Gurubhai. I have a suspiscion that he was a better exponent of true

Vaisnav Sanatan Dharma. The supreme lord arranged that by mistake you

ended up with your true guru! The other gentleman is also a guru but a

secondary one. When you spent time in India, your roots became more Indian

and you will never find the same peace in the other mass movement. The

Indian tradition is based on the one to one close relationship of master

and disciple. In fact the word Upanishad means " At the feet of the

master". When one sits at the feet of the master with Gurubuddhi - ie. an

attitude of seeking enlightenment and serving then it leads to Upasana (

meaning raising of one's seat or Asana). When you serve your master, you

can only do that physically if you raise your self to the level of his

feet. Similarly Seva Bhava automatically raises one to higher

consciousness. This process is called Upanishada and this is refered to

Vedanta.

 

Sri Krihsnam vande Jagadgurum

 

 

Sri Uma Mahadev ki jay

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66

Sent by:

09/01/2005 09:22 AM

Please respond to

 

cc:

RBSC : True Guru <---HERE'S A GOOD CASE STUDY

 

 

Here's a case study:

 

A man in dire straits meets an Indian Guru who initiates him and gives

him a spiritual name. He then advises him to go stay with him in India.

The man gets to India only to find that his Guru is gone to stay in the

west. So he stays with the (senior) Guru bhai of his Guru who gives

shelter. The Gurubhai tells the man that he received letters from the

Guru that the man should stay with him to learn. So the Gurubhai

becomes the new Guru of the man and even reinitiates him. Many years

pass in this way.

 

Finally the man finds out that his original Guru is angry at the Guru

Bhai for stealing his disciple and lying about his letters. He

instructs the man to renounce the monkhood received from the Guru Bhai

and return as a brahmachari with the original name.

 

The man asks the Guru Bhai to let him go back to his real guru, but the

Guru Bhai becomes angry too. Seeing the two gurus fighting and calling

names the man decides to leave. First he returns to his original Guru,

who bad mouths his Guru Bhai. So the man decides that BOTH are his

guru, but he is disappointed in them both for fighting like mundane men

over a worthless little disciple.

 

Plus the man finds that life with the Guru Bhai was far more inspiring

and "paaka," while life with original Guru is an institutional night

mare of mixing men and women always chasing after money.

 

Q: Does this man have No Guru? Or Two Gurus? Or One Guru? Who would be

"True Guru" in the above example case?