Book Of The One- To Dennis-ji , Rishiji, Sadaji ................

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji:

 

i would also like to follow the noble example of our Team Leader

Rishiji and bundle up all my REPLIES in one single post.

 

Dear Dennis-ji :

 

i GUESS there is world of difference between the English

Word 'Teacher ' and the Sanskrit word 'Guru '- A teacher may or

may not be enlightened ; you are somewhat 'Right ' in that sense but

the word Guru has a different connotation. Gu means 'Darkness'

and 'ru ' means 'dispellar'; -Guru is One who dispels 'darkness'(

wherin darkness is seen as 'avidya', lack of knowledge both

spiritual and intellectual ! )So , Dennis-ji , all teachers need not

be Gurus and all gurus need not necessarily be Teachers ! For

instance , Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa could never

describe 'samadhi ' to his disciples - the moment his disciples

asked the Paramahamsa what 'samadhi ' is , the Thakore would go into

samadhi on hearing the word ! On the contrary , we have in Today's

world, many teachers who can write very descriptive books

on 'Samadhi ' and 'Kundalini' yoga without experiencing any of these

states ! Very ironical but none the less true ! It is like some

Woman writing about 'Labor ' pains without going through

the 'delivery proceess or ever being pregnant .

 

To be well versed in Scriptures is a good thing but in order to be

good tecahers one need to practice and live the 'Truth' as outlined

in the scriptures ! Is it not , Dennis-ji ! OTHERWISE , IT WOULD BE

LIKE DEVIL QUOTING THE SCRIPTURES !

 

on the other hand , i would however concede this point that Sri

Ramana maharishi's teachings were made popular in the west only

because of his western disciples like Arthur Osborne, Paul

Brunton, David Godman etc etc .... Yes , Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi's

valuable teachings were made available to the west only because of

these great scholarly disciples who knew the fine art of

communication in the universal English Language !

 

SO, DENNIS-JI , YOUR OBSERVATIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID. However ,

Gurudom is SACRED and not all teachers can be Gurus .

 

Respected Sada-ji :

 

This post of yours won my heart hands down specially the following

words:

 

(Scripture advises to approach a teacher who is

shrotriam and brahmanishTam - the one who has both

knowledge of the scriptures ( which also means one who

has heard the teaching from his teacher) and one who

has established in that Brahman. )

 

That is why there is only one 'Acharya ' and when we say Acharya -

we mean only Shankaracharya wheras for all others we add 'acharya '

at the end of their name like Dronacharya , Kripacharya , Madava

charya etc !

 

Of course , you are right somewhat when you claim that

 

" The best thing to do is to listen to the scriptural

discourses available without worrying about whether

the teacher is realized or not, since that kind of

question will lead no where. The teaching has to be

intellectually convincing, yet based on the scriptural

confirmation. Without the later, the former can be

invalidated. With that kind of faith, even if the

teacher is not realized, the student can. "

 

Howver , if a teacher who is not 'realized ' keeps repeating parrot

like 'Tat Twam Asi ' , how are the students to take that teacher

seriously knowing well he is not a brahmanishta but only a

shotriya ? The Teacher of Brahma vidya should be a brahma nshta ,

would you not say ? Just thinking loud!

 

now , Rishi-ji :

 

you write

 

Ideally a guru is a brahmanistha and a shrotriya but not

neccesarily, of course. A guru who is not a brahmanistha but is a

shrotriya is still someone one can learn a lot

from.

 

Rishiji - you like to have your cake and eat it too ! Smile :-) What

can you learn from a Shotriya - may be the scriptures , right ? but

only a brahmanishta can impart the sacred knowledge of Brahman ?(

brahmavidya) - a look or a touch is enough from a knower of a

Brahman ! sparsha diksha in the style of Sri Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa or a nayana diksha in the style of Baskaraya !

 

Viveka chudamani says

 

The study of the Scriptures is useless so long as the highest Truth

is unknown, and it is equally useless when the highest Truth has

already been known.

 

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " dhyanasaraswati "

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

>Respected Sir,

Pranams to u sir.Having gone through your post in detail I felt

that every word in it is worth noting.

you Nicely clarified about the difference between Guru and Teacher

and also What GURU means.

At the same time you impressed the importance of following the

sayings of guru without thinking of whether the guru Realized what he

preached or not

Thank Q verymuch For presenting good post

HariOhm

SASTRY

[Guest guest]

" The teaching has to be

> intellectually convincing, yet based on the

> scriptural

> confirmation. Without the later, the former can be

> invalidated. With that kind of faith, even if the

> teacher is not realized, the student can. "

 

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

 

> Howver , if a teacher who is not 'realized ' keeps

> repeating parrot

> like 'Tat Twam Asi ' , how are the students to take

> that teacher

> seriously knowing well he is not a brahmanishta but

> only a

> shotriya ?

 

The above possibility is already eliminated when it

was mentioned that the teaching has to be

intellectually convincing and with scriptural support.

If the student does not use his intellect properly,

that will be his problem and in the process he will

learn also how to use his intellect to find the right

teacher, who can teach him. In that sense the previous

teacher was the right teacher since he indirectly

taught him how to use his intellect properly.

 

The fact remains that as the student cannot know

whether someone (including the teacher) is realized or

not, it is better to assume, from the student part,

that his teacher is a realized person. In fact, a

student who feels that he has gained knowledge from

his teacher and has no more doubts left, also feels

that his teacher is realized (whether the teacher is

realized or not is of no consequence here since

student or any other person can never know anyway).

Hence only by the grace of God that one is led to a

right teacher.

 

In fact Dattatreya says in his avadhuuta geeta

-'Iswaraanugraat eva pumsaam advaita vaasanaa' - by

Iswara kRipa only one is led to an advaitic master. I

was born in vishishhTaadvaita family and my father

himself was a great teacher of vishishhTaadvaita. The

Lord himself led me to a great advaita master - a

direct proof of the pudding.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda