Fwd from NDP: Teachers and teachings.

[Guest guest]

Teacher has the real power. A teacher

acts as LIVING EXAMPLE and makes the

teaching 'Self Evident' by his very Presence.

The real teacher teaches by being the

embodiment of the teaching.

 

 

Without such Living Example, words

are simply dead and ineffective. Such

dead words can only appeal to the ignorant,

looking for a 'mantra' [reciting/memory tool]

or to 'vain', looking for more knowledge

to add to his knowledge and his debating

arsenals.

 

To imagine that memorizing and reciting

same words as a Ramana or Osho will make

one 'equal' to Ramana and Osho is an example

of ignorance. Real spiritual teaching is about

the embodiment of taught truths and not mere

mental recitation and memorization of them.

 

By having embodied the spiritual truths,

the disciple himself becomes not only

equal to the guru, but, in fact, the guru

himself - because, the embodiment of the

spiritual truth is the prime purpose and teaching

of a true guru. Having embodied the truth,

one teaches by his mere presence and by

the way of being, even without having to utter a

single word.

 

However, until such embodiment has happened,

every spiritual teaching does need a guru.

Guru is the " proof " of the teaching. True Guru is

the embodiment, incarnation of the spiritual teaching

and his Presence is the real teaching, not words.

Words are something that any 'literate' fool can

memorize and utter. But just memorization of

such words, don't mean that the teaching is

actually understood and learnt. Because, embodiment of

the teaching is only real learning there is.

 

 

 

 

----

 

PS: I mean no personal disrespect to you, Stuart.

In fact, I have Great Respect for you.

 

Your website is very well done and very

informative. Your messages are usually quite

well-thought, balanced and generally respectful,

friendly, kind and compassionate.

 

In my reply to your message, I am only

commenting on the prevalent misconception

among 'literates' on the lines of. . .

 

- Being 'like' Ramana means knowing the

question 'Who am I?'

 

- Mere memorizing a question like 'Who am I?'

Or, a statement like 'I am that I am' means

that one is same as Ramana or Abraham!

 

 

Or,

 

that mere memorization of the word 'non violence'

means one has become equal to. . . Gandhi!

 

 

Truth is that a Gandhi can teach non violence simply

by his presence, simply by his way of being and without

having to utter a word; whereas, someone who only knows

the word intellectually will constantly fail to teach it

because failing to really embody it, his presence has no

such Power.

 

Spiritual progress is about embodiment. It is

not about mere memorization of 'what someone

said'.

 

 

 

 

[ NNB ]

 

Pesi <pedsie6 wrote:

> What if you saw Ramana wearing a loin cloth at your

> supermarket?

 

 

Stuart wrote:

 

People come to a guru's ashram and get some sort of big experience

sometimes. The ones that hang around and become the guru's entourage

are those who decided that the guru must have special powers. What

other explanation could there be?

 

It seems much more likely to me that the entire situation was the

trigger for the special experience. The nice tinkly music, the

insence, everyone trying to make everything beautiful, everyone

trying to act better than they really are. Most important, it's a

situation where a group of people all implicitly agree to believe in

something together, to re-inforce some dogma (stated or otherwise),

to not question the shared beliefs.

 

When people think it's about some special state or power of the guru,

I say they're missing the big picture. Of course, there are teachings

that can be real useful. " What am I? " is a powerful practice... but

that remains true regardless of whether Ramana or anyone else has any

special powers or mind-state.

 

Stuart

http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/socalled.htm