Myths, Belief and respect for teachers

[Guest guest]

There seems to be a prevailing trend of imagining one's teacher as

all knowing and that once an individual submits to a teacher they

should beleive each and every thing the teacher says.

 

It should be kept in mind that, teachers/Gurus though superhuman in

the context of upadesha/dIkSha and in terms of guiding when it comes

to sAdhana, are after all humans when it comes to mundane issues.

 

If one observes ancient works/commentaries sometimes a learned

shiShya expresses disagreement with his teacher's work/opinion. This

does not mean that there is a lack of respect for his teacher.

 

In our present context, imagining shankaracharya as an avatAra of

shiva or beleiveing he is shrIvidya upAsaka has no bearing to one's

upAsana dArDya or upAsana bala. On the other hand beleiving above but

doing little real sadhAna does not get one anywhere despite the

strong beleif.

 

In other words the devata anugraha or progress towards moxa(if that

is what one want) will be dependant on how much sAdhana and study one

does and certainly not on how strong is one's belief in the

hagiography of an ancient AchArya.

 

As an example: There is a hateful madhva work on AchArya saying he is

a brahma rAkShasa. Just because some madhva teacher wrote this, this

doesnt become true for this madhva's students.

[Guest guest]

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> There seems to be a prevailing trend of imagining one's teacher as

> all knowing and that once an individual submits to a teacher they

> should beleive each and every thing the teacher says.

>

> It should be kept in mind that, teachers/Gurus though superhuman in

> the context of upadesha/dIkSha and in terms of guiding when it comes

> to sAdhana, are after all humans when it comes to mundane issues.

>

> If one observes ancient works/commentaries sometimes a learned

> shiShya expresses disagreement with his teacher's work/opinion. This

> does not mean that there is a lack of respect for his teacher.

>

> In our present context, imagining shankaracharya as an avatAra of

> shiva or beleiveing he is shrIvidya upAsaka has no bearing to one's

> upAsana dArDya or upAsana bala. On the other hand beleiving above

but

> doing little real sadhAna does not get one anywhere despite the

> strong beleif.

>

> In other words the devata anugraha or progress towards moxa(if that

> is what one want) will be dependant on how much sAdhana and study

one

> does and certainly not on how strong is one's belief in the

> hagiography of an ancient AchArya.

>

> As an example: There is a hateful madhva work on AchArya saying he

is

> a brahma rAkShasa. Just because some madhva teacher wrote this, this

> doesnt become true for this madhva's students.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

>- krishnarao

subject - Myths, Belief and respect for teachers

 

Dear satishji,

 

Especially for the upAsakAs of SrIvidya, the very thought of

equalizing the guru with a class teacher is not at all permitted.

Teachers will be there in several numbers. But the guru should be

only one for the whole of ones life time. " gururEkah " . The guru need

not explain anything to the student. A single syllable of alphabet

emitted out from him is enough for an uttam adhikAri SiShya to

understand every thing what is needful.

 

The very thought that " the guru is after all a human " will be

the utmost disqualification to be a SiShya for SrIvidya. The guru is

just bypassing the power, what he had received from his guru, without

any additions or deletions. The person before you initiating is only a

prototype of his guru: like wise the whole parampara right from

nArAyaNa down to his own guru. We should understand that all of the

parampara is inherent in this guru`s `upAdhi'. Questioning the

authority of this guru means, doubting about the whole parampara.

 

For an individual, the mother becomes the first guru, then the

father, his relatives, friends, his class teachers, the whole of the

nature, literature he reads and every thing of his perceptions become

the guru. To understand the consolidated knowledge of all the above

diversities, one is selecting an individual (who was authorized by his

guru to initiate others) as his guru. This guru is the `samaSAhti' of

all the above mentioned gurus. " guru " means the highest and the

greatest. None else would be higher than him or none else would be

greater than him. " guruvAkyamEva sammatam " .

You have approached the SrIvidyA guru only to know about

yourself. The guru is praised as " swarUpanirUpaNa hEtuh " . Because it

can not be revealed strait away, he has chosen a process of creating

so many gods to make you believe that you are the mold of all those

gods, and that there is none else other than you. All these gods, all

these men and women, all these perceptions of nature are all nothing

other than the extensions of your own self. To establish this truth

in your mind, it was inevitable for him to implant some notions of

fruitfulness of aspirations and also the apprehension of evil

consequences, even though they are all not fully true. After all,

there is no difference between `vidya' and `avidya'. Only truth is,

" mattah parataram nAsti kincit " . That itself is the " Suddha vidya " .

" brahma satyam, jagan mithya " .

Many of us are limiting themselves with their own knowledge and

looking for bookish knowledge and audaciously beginning to argue with

their own gurus too. They only look for the mantras and miracles. They

always imagine about the deities of some other worlds to come near and

fulfill all his wishes. They always depend upon the " ghost scripts "

and that is why they might some times call their gurus as " brahma

rAkShasAs " .

Please, let us not go into any arguments and disagreements

with SrIguru if you want to achieve what you really want. Blind faith

upon guru parampara is not bad, because that only will be able to lead

you to your goal.

Yours always in the service SrIguru who himself is SrImAta,

krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Krishna Rao tAtagAru,

 

I would to respectfully disagree on few issues and clarify my stand

on other points.

 

 

, " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao

wrote:

> The very thought that " the guru is after all a human " will be

> the utmost disqualification to be a SiShya for SrIvidya.

 

I like to clarify that this statement was made in the sense that

Guru is also a husband, a father, a brother etc to others and the

individual experieneces pleasure and pain etc eventhough he may be

neutral to these because of his yoga/siddhi(in a broader sense..not

petty siddhis)

 

Likewise they may have preferences, likes, dislikes etc.

 

The only exception to this is a brahma GYAni(in kevalAdvaita sense)

and having such a teacher is something next to impossible.

 

 

>The person before you initiating is only a

> prototype of his guru: like wise the whole parampara right from

> nArAyaNa down to his own guru. We should understand that all of the

> parampara is inherent in this guru`s `upAdhi'.

 

Absolutely no disagreement till this sentence. Very rightly said.

 

 

> Questioning the

> authority of this guru means, doubting about the whole parampara.

 

Another clarification here:

We will ask what it means to doubt a guru in the first place.

1) If it means doubting the guru's(assuming a true and really

accomplished guru) advice when it comes to sAdhana then there is no

disagreement with what you said.

 

2) For ex: A shrIvidya guru says to his disciple that a certain

contemporary saint is an avatAra of let us say, shrIkriShNa. Then the

shiShya can either believe this or not and his sAdhana will not get

effected.

 

Example 2: The guru says that a known mathematical equation or a

certain proven theory of Physics is wrong. Here too we need not take

the words of the guru seriously.

 

I wanted to deal with this topic at length considering more case and

examples but I feel like stopping here for now.

 

There are other points which your kindself mentioned that one cannot

disagree with.

 

Best Regards

[Guest guest]

My dear satishji,

 

I appreciate your stand on this point of disagreement.

 

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> Namaste Krishna Rao tAtagAru,

>

> I would to respectfully disagree on few issues and clarify my stand

> on other points.

>

>

> , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao@>

> wrote:

> > The very thought that " the guru is after all a human " will

be

> > the utmost disqualification to be a SiShya for SrIvidya.

>

> I like to clarify that this statement was made in the sense that

> Guru is also a husband, a father, a brother etc to others and the

> individual experieneces pleasure and pain etc eventhough he may be

> neutral to these because of his yoga/siddhi(in a broader sense..not

> petty siddhis)

////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

In case of SrIvidyA guru, he is just like the husband and a

father,but not as a brother. Just as you cannot deny the husband and

father and choose another person to occupy that position, SrIguru also

is unchangeble. It might be impossible select such a brahmaGyAnii

beforehand just like you can not choose your father or husband

beforehand.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

> Likewise they may have preferences, likes, dislikes etc.

>

> The only exception to this is a brahma GYAni(in kevalAdvaita sense)

> and having such a teacher is something next to impossible.

>

>

> >The person before you initiating is only a

> > prototype of his guru: like wise the whole parampara right from

> > nArAyaNa down to his own guru. We should understand that all of

the

> > parampara is inherent in this guru`s `upAdhi'.

>

> Absolutely no disagreement till this sentence. Very rightly said.

>

>

> > Questioning the

> > authority of this guru means, doubting about the whole parampara.

>

> Another clarification here:

> We will ask what it means to doubt a guru in the first place.

> 1) If it means doubting the guru's(assuming a true and really

> accomplished guru) advice when it comes to sAdhana then there is no

> disagreement with what you said.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A qualified guru will never advise you anything other than the

matters of sAdhana.

/////////////////////////////////////////

>

> 2) For ex: A shrIvidya guru says to his disciple that a certain

> contemporary saint is an avatAra of let us say, shrIkriShNa. Then

the

> shiShya can either believe this or not and his sAdhana will not get

> effected.

/////////////////////////////////////

No good SrIvidyA guru will ask you to believe such false

notions,because he has to say you that you are supreme " tat twam asi "

and every one is your own extension.

///////////////////////////////////////////////

 

>

> Example 2: The guru says that a known mathematical equation or a

> certain proven theory of Physics is wrong. Here too we need not take

> the words of the guru seriously.

////////////////////////////////////////

some times known mathematical equations also deceive us.

I hope you perfectly know that two plus two is not exactly four.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

>

> I wanted to deal with this topic at length considering more case and

> examples but I feel like stopping here for now.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Better we stop this discussion here itself.

 

krishnarao

////////////////////////////////////////

>

> There are other points which your kindself mentioned that one cannot

> disagree with.

>

> Best Regards

[Guest guest]

Just my humble opinion.

 

While much can be discussed on faith in guru, there are couple of

things to be noticed. One is " sastra " and the other

is " sampradaya " . While " sastra " can be understood with logic by

using our limited brains, there is something called

" sampradaya " which is as tender as the lotus petals and cannot be

understood with logic. The " sampradaya " is formed by the mula

guru out of " upAsana bala " and " compassion " towards his disciples.

 

Now, the thin film of separation between " sastra " and " sampradaya "

can only be understood by a satguru who hails from

good lineage having the upasana bala. Take for instance:

 

Upasakas are quite aware of the story of married life of Lopamudra

and Agastya. Prior to their marriage,

Lopamudra was initiated into srividya unlike Agastya. When both got

married, owing to the lack of srividya with Agastya,

the ceremony of " punahsandhAna " was cancelled because of the yogini

pratyavAya befalling on Agastya. So, Agastya was not allowed

to touch his wife. After duly getting initiated in Srividya from

Hayagriva at Kanchipuram, again the ceremony of " punahsandhAna "

was performed.

 

If wife is srividya initiate and hushand is not, he would not be

able to withstand the yoga tApa and the power of his wife.

If husband is srividya initiate and wife is not, she would not be

able to hold the virya of her husband. And the result is

premature death of offsprings or birth of physically handicapped

children.

 

And hence for grihastas, srividya is given to both husband and wife.

Also, the tantra says " saktiyuktasyaiva diksha " . Husband

should take the diksha alongwith his wife (who is his sakti).

 

This can only be understood through one's guru sampradya.

 

Also, the newly-wed girl who comes to her in-laws house, should be

initiated in Gowri Panchakshari (atleast in our family)

which is supposed to be auspicious for her husband and in-laws as

well as to the parents who performed kanya dana. This mantra

is usually given during the performance of gowri puja at the time of

marriage.

 

This can only be understood through achara and sampradaya.

 

I don't think this is mentioned in any sastra.

 

If we try to understand the " sampradaya " , the disciple must be " fit

enough to " feel the pulse of guru which is like " understanding the

rishi-hridaya " while analysing the veda mantras.

 

Accepting sastra and rejecting sampradaya is often quoted

as " ardhajarati nyaya " by Acharya Sankara in

expounding " purva mimamsa " .

 

with regards,

sriram

 

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> Namaste Krishna Rao tAtagAru,

>

> I would to respectfully disagree on few issues and clarify my

stand

> on other points.

>

>

> , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao@>

> wrote:

> > The very thought that " the guru is after all a human " will

be

> > the utmost disqualification to be a SiShya for SrIvidya.

>

> I like to clarify that this statement was made in the sense that

> Guru is also a husband, a father, a brother etc to others and the

> individual experieneces pleasure and pain etc eventhough he may be

> neutral to these because of his yoga/siddhi(in a broader

sense..not

> petty siddhis)

>

> Likewise they may have preferences, likes, dislikes etc.

>

> The only exception to this is a brahma GYAni(in kevalAdvaita

sense)

> and having such a teacher is something next to impossible.

>

>

> >The person before you initiating is only a

> > prototype of his guru: like wise the whole parampara right from

> > nArAyaNa down to his own guru. We should understand that all of

the

> > parampara is inherent in this guru`s `upAdhi'.

>

> Absolutely no disagreement till this sentence. Very rightly said.

>

>

> > Questioning the

> > authority of this guru means, doubting about the whole parampara.

>

> Another clarification here:

> We will ask what it means to doubt a guru in the first place.

> 1) If it means doubting the guru's(assuming a true and really

> accomplished guru) advice when it comes to sAdhana then there is

no

> disagreement with what you said.

>

> 2) For ex: A shrIvidya guru says to his disciple that a certain

> contemporary saint is an avatAra of let us say, shrIkriShNa. Then

the

> shiShya can either believe this or not and his sAdhana will not

get

> effected.

>

> Example 2: The guru says that a known mathematical equation or a

> certain proven theory of Physics is wrong. Here too we need not

take

> the words of the guru seriously.

>

> I wanted to deal with this topic at length considering more case

and

> examples but I feel like stopping here for now.

>

> There are other points which your kindself mentioned that one

cannot

> disagree with.

>

> Best Regards

>