Compassion and guru-s

[Natha Bhaktyananda]

Rushikesh has written:

Ramana was staying on the boundary of that infinite Paramatman
and this manifestation of the same. His face towards the
infinite.

Now what was the necessity for him to stay in this world ? To answer
to children who came to him running from all directions ?
---------------------------

Paramahamsa Ramakrishna is pretty clear about that reason: compassion
for those still unenlightened. He was himself on the edge of taking the
great leap into the infinite, without ever returning to the world of
duality, and spent six months in nirvikalpa state. Only compassion
(helped by the "gentle" hand of Kali) has determined him to return and
remain on the threshold; still it was very easy for him to "tilt" on the
other side, and most difficult to pull himself down to this reality.

Rushikesh has also written:

But everything has its place in the jeevas journey towards the destiny.
Mother has been our first Guru with form. She taught us language using
which we read about Ramana. She fed our body using which we go to
Arunachala. When you complete your school education, you go to higher
classes
and then you get professors and then even the Nobel laureates as your
teachers. Now will you say that your earlier teachers were false
teachers ?
When I am hungry, first my hunger has to be quenched. When I go in
search
of job, I get job.

Do not underestimate the value of getting mislead.
Getting mislead is very very great teaching.
------------------------------

However, misleading was *not* the path that great masters (as Shankara)
have chosen for enlightening their disciples! Mother, misleading,
troubles, life, Nobel-prize winners, they can all be "guru-s", but they
are pathetic and extremely slow guru-s compared with the genuine ones.
So they may be called "false" from a certain standpoint.

With blessings,

--
Natha Bhaktyananda <natha at dk-online.dk>
Kxbmagergade 28, 2., 1150 K
Denmark
Tf.: (45) 33930858, Fax: (45) 33930668

>From  Mon Oct 28 16:35:54 1996
Message-Id: <MON.28.OCT.1996.163554.GMT.>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:35:54 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: Guru
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <3274BE28.4E4 at dk-online.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:07:36 +0100, Natha Bhaktyananda
<natha at DK-ONLINE.DK> wrote:

>Ramakrishnan has written:
>
>I'll give two examples. I consider dakshiNaamuurti as my guru. But I
>can't
>start saying that I belong to the "dakshiNaamuurti lineage" and start
>asking
>people to buy my books, tapes etc since I belong to the "dakshiNaamuurti
>lineage" in an effort to buy myself legitimacy through dakshiNaamuurti.
>
>Say there is a person who considers H.H abhinava Vidya tiirtha, the
>previous
>pontiff of Sringeri as his guru, say, since he was transformed by his
>books,
>lectures etc. Now he can't go around saying that he belongs to the
>"abhinava
>vidyaa tiirtha lineage".
>------------------------------
>
>        Dear Ramakrishnan,
>
>I think that, in spite of your Indian name, you have a very Westernized
>concept of "guru"; traditionally, the guru is not one whom *you*
>consider as such, but one who *accepts* you as disciple and coaches you.
>In this way we can avoid the confusion of the people who consider
>themselves chela-s of guru-s that have been dead since long, and who
>thus can avoid one of the key-functions of the guru -- that of
>destroying the pupil's ego by methods which are not always pleasant or
>"acceptable". By this phoney understanding, one can then say that
>troubles have been one's guru, or that life itself is one's guru. And
>life *is* a guru, but one that leads to moksha in 10,000 lifetimes. For
>those who do not wish to wait that long, a more "concrete" guru is
>needed.

While I agree with your main point, ( which was concisely stated by a
popular false guru as "dead gurus can't kick your a** " ), I have to
disagree with your statement that a living guru must accept you.

We have evidence otherwise in the Mahabharata in the story of Ekalavya
and his guru Dronacharya.

And there was a person who later became a famous saint (possibly
Kabir?) who surreptiously followed around a master whom he wanted to
take as his guru, until the guru stubbed his toe and yelled "Ram ! "
(instead of a curse word), at which point he considered that he had
received mantra initiation from the guru and went off to practice
"Ram".


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org