To Guru or not to Guru that is the Question...Guru Gita

[Guest guest]

Hi,

>From what little i know, the traditional Interpretation of these

Verses of the Guru Gita are different from your Interpretation.

 

These verses of the Guru Gita are traditionally intended to mean

that the knowledge of the Self and that the Knowledge of the devi

does solely dependent on the grace of the living Guru, and that one

can reach the self or the devi or both, quickly by worship of the

Padukas of a human Guru, while your interpretation of the content of

the verses is that since the Guru is the self and one with devi one

may dispense with the physical Guru because there is always either

the self or the devi present, who can this become so to say a

subsitute for the physical presence of the Guru.

 

Of course some people, especially adherents of the western neo-

advaita philosophy belive. like you do, that the guru is better

described as an abstract philosophic symbol of an inner guiding light

the self.

I am not judging whether these beliefs are correct or not, i only

want to remind that the original traditions that value the Guru

Gita, like Dattatreya Sampradaya do not share this idea, instead they

belive the opposite, that nothing can be attained without Guru, and

this is what is illustrated in these verses according to the

commentary of their Authorities.

 

Also in other lineages than the rather devotional Digambaris or

Avadhootha´s that are said to have been originating from, or are

connected to the primal Guru Dattatreya, to name two: the Nath panth

and some of the Kaula Srividya Paramparas, worship of the living

Guru as the embodiment of Devi/Shiva/Datta and as embodiment of self

knowledge is of utmost importance.

 

There are of course some spiritual teachers that favour the "symbolic

Guru", and i do not want to criticise any of them, or you.

 

I don´t belive in true or false, only in appropriate and

inappropriate, whether one idea is more appropriate than another for

soemone is not for me to decide so i do not take sides.

 

I only like to point out that the Sampradayas that respect the Guru

Gita as Authority are fervent worshippers of a concrete human Guru,

who is either alive or has been once a living human being.

 

The importance of the physical Guru is very great in some traditions.

For instance there is a teaching among Yog sampraday where the Gods,

including the trimurti, are said to have been in the beginning,

created out of the act of the intense contemplation (dhyana) of the

primal Guru Gorakhnath on the formless aspect of god/world, this

shows that the worship offered and esteem in which the Guru is held

by some Traditions is even above that of the devas or the self. These

traditions make the Guru emanate the Gods, deities are a part of the

Gurus maya-his power of creation.

 

It is not generally known that some tantric traditions go as far as

to deny the objective existence of the devas aside from what is

produced by the Gurus mind.

 

The nastika bauddha tantrics, and those of the Mahacinacara do also

belive that the Guru creates the tantric deities by his siddhi, he

originate or draws them forth from his contemplation of primal

emptiness, as visual and auditive forms, on a subtle immaterial

level, to aid and help the student to realise the nature of his mind.

 

In these nastika tantric traditions the disciple is constantly

reminded that the deities have no actual self existence apart from

the mindstuff and are thus creations of his teachers mind who

deserveres refernce before the deity is worshipped.

 

Of course in such a philosophical environment or belief system the

decision is simple, Sadhana without a teacher is not possible, since

in astika sampradayas we do generally belive at least in some sort

of self existence of the deities that is independent from our mind,

the question whether a Guru is needed becomes more complicated.

 

But i like to point out that no matter what indian tradition in puja

obeisance is first to the Guru and later to the deities.

 

mahaHrada

 

 

, "ecjensen_us"

<ecjensen_us wrote:

>

> OM NAMAH SIVAYA

>

> is it even possible to be without The Guru? reading your post made

me

> think of one time reading the Guru Gita. i'm sure you all know the

> story, in the beginning Parvati asks Siva to explain the Guru

> principle to Her. i posted a few of the relevant verses below;

>

> Verse 1. Suta said:

>

> Once, while Lord Shiva, who knows the secret of

> devotion, was seated on beautiful Mount Kailas,

> Parvati bowed to Him with reverence and asked:

>

> Verse 2. The Goddess said:

>

> O Lord of Gods whose real nature is `Om'! O Supreme

> Teacher of the universe! O benevolent great God!

> Initiate me into the mystery of the Guru.

>

> Verse 3.

>

> O Lord! By which path can an embodied being become one

> with the Absolute! O benevolent great God! Initiate me

> into the mystery of the Guru.

>

> Verse 4. The Lord Said:

>

> O Goddess, you are My very Self! I speak out of My

> love for you. No one has ever asked this question,

> which is a boon to all.

>

> Verse 5. The Lord Said:

>

> I am revealing the inscrutable mystery of all three

> worlds. Listen! The Absolute is not different from the

> Guru. O Beautiful One! This is the Truth, this is the

> Truth.

>

> Verse 6.

>

> The Vedas, various other scriptures, epics, the

> sciences of mantra and yantra, the Smritis and other

> books.

>

> Verse 7.

>

> The Shaiva and Shakta treatises, and different sects

> and dogmas---all these only further confuse already

> deluded creatures.

>

> Verse 8.

>

> They are fools who practice sacrificial fires, vows,

> penances, gifts, japa and pilgrimage without knowing

> the truth of the Guru.

>

> Verse 9. The Lord Said:

>

> The Guru is not different from the Self, from

> Consciousness. This is beyond doubt the Truth, the

> Absolute Truth. Hence a wise man/woman must seek

> his/her Guru.

>

> then later it continues;

>

>

> Verse 39.

>

> Salutations to the Guru by whose knowledge this world

> is no longer seen as an object, distinct from the

> Self. His only form is Truth.

>

> Verse 40.

>

> Salutations to the Guru who is known to those who do

> not know Her, but not to those who claim to know Her.

> Nothing exists but Her.

>

> Verse 41.

>

> Salutations to the Guru who, though being the Primary

> Cause, is seen as an effect; who is the cause as well

> as the effect.

>

> Verse 42.

>

> This world of diversities is, in fact,

> undifferentiated. It is merely a play of cause and

> effect. Salutations to the Guru (who reveals this

> truth).

>

> so if all cause and effect is The Guru and God, Guru, Self, are

One,

> this coupled with the fact, like you said, all fruits are given by

> Devi as she pleases, to whom she pleases. if this is true, what is

> there to really worry about? it is said not even a leaf falls from

a

> tree unless it is God's will. so if we sincerely worship Devi out

of

> Love, with pure intention, how can we go wrong? and should we get

off

> course, surely we can have faith that out of Her unconditional Love

> for us, She will send us an external Guru to set us back on course.

>

> JAI MA

>

[Guest guest]

namaskar,

 

Beautiful explanation, just beautiful. However I do have a few subtle quams with Mahachinachara as you mention it.

I am not keen in Baudha philosophy, nor am I a practitioner of their paddhatis, however all I am saying is that to my understanding Mahachina is Astika, could you please enlighten me as to how it is seen as Nastika? Here is my take on Mahachina:

 

Sure if we all readily accept Vidyaranya's take on Bauddha systems then they most definetly would be considered Nastika. There are many components of Bauddha systems that are Nastika, but I feel Mahachinachara is not Nastika in origin and in belief.

 

My reasoning is simple; Brihannila is one of the few tantras that actually take Mahachina seriously and is considered as a treatise on its belief system. Cut out the allusions and direct suggestions of Mahachina, and you've got your self a standard tantra which cannot be easily differentiated from other kaula or vAmaNayachAra texts. The truth of the matter is that it is infact vamanA of the highest quality. A lot of Shri Vidya texts say that it needed to be brought into practice since [at their time] a lot of the tantric paths had stooped into the darker worship systems [as they considered it]. Brihannila is most definetly a ressurection of these alleged darker worshiping methods, post Shri Vidya establishment.

 

Brihannila doesnt really make any direct references to Mahachina being Baudha. Just that Vashista practiced his style of Tara sadhana in China or somewhere close to it. Its just a system that tries to come to terms with the origins and the tantra of Neelasaraswati where her puja gets associated with some of the more orthodox maha vidyas like Aniruddha Saraswati [Kali, Matangi or Neelapataka, take your pick], Bhagawati Kai and Bhagawati Tara.

 

If you see Neelaraswati Vidya you will realize that its a blended mixture of bijas sacred to Tara [to which Akshobhaya is seer and not Brahma and Vashista], Kali and Baneshwari

 

I havent read much of this book because the mantras really are too difficult to do in my time frame. I already am behind the schedule given to me by my dear acharyas, yet alone do some devoution on the side line lol. But so far in my readings of Brihannila [just the starting two or three paTalas], I havent seen much reference to Baudha systems.

 

You also have to consider that Vajrayana holds Vajrayogini has the highest Diety and that She is the supreme Divine. It is probably Hinayana and elements of Mahayana where there is question of Nastika. Of course even Vajrayana raises eyebrows with Hindu Scholars since they claim their deva chakras killed ours [Heruka killing Isvara/Shiva and all]. So in essence I think it probably has a very subjective status, it would depend on who you ask. Many buddhists I spoke to in India think of Tara as the highest, most absolute truth and as God. The concept of Bodhisattva to them is purely pedantic. I havent met any Lamas in my life so I cant really say that I know their private and intimate takes on Vajrayogini but I am sure that you will find some who take Her as being the Supreme Divinity that most Kaulas percieve her to be. Sometimes Scripture and practitioner dont go hand in hand. Take me, I prefer worshipping Bhagawati in one of her Nitya forms than as the major Maha Vidya.

 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.