--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just realized that this whole discussion of a > "false" guru is nonsense. Of what purpose are all > these criteria? Are these to be used to select a guru? > No, not as they are written. They are simply an > attempt by a mind to position itself in relationship > to a narrative it likes regarding gurus. They have an > ideal guru in mind and compare and judge every flesh > and blood guru to this one. It's really nonsense and > no practical function. Just mind fluff (very sticky > indeed!). The only way to see if a guru is of value is > to involve yourself in their teaching for an honest > amount of time. If it works for you, great, if it > doesn't, move on. Buddha didn't disparage the teachers > he studied with and found inadequate to his > enlightenment. He just moved on. These teachers had a > value for other people, not for him. MMY has had great > value for many people. Many people still gain value > from him. Many have moved on. It is what it is. To > lock yourself into a conceptual model of a "perfect" > guru is just silliness. Like wishing for the "perfect" > mate or mother or father. A sign of psychological > immaturity, isn't it? >
**** This discussion is not nonsense. It can be crucially important information to some people in their spiritual navigation. Few people select their guru based solely on these criteria. A strong pull towards a certain person is probably the most important criteria. The understanding that the teacher may not be perfect or even honest, while he is capable of transmitting the infinite value, maybe very useful. When you are aware of this fact, I think it becomes possible to receive from the guru just the infinite value and not adopting the other stuff or adopting it selectively. You may also become capable of resisting getting bound by the guru or resisting expectations of donating money etc. Having this kind of understanding makes it also easier to leave the guru, when you have learned, what you needed. The gurus with less evolved personalities are manipulative and try often to control the devotees and require them to make promises of loyalty to them and `their techniques'. When you have clarity about these features, you are not anymore so easily intimidated by the guru with the consequences of leaving him or criticising him. If a guru makes such threats he is really a very low level person, whom it would be better to leave behind. When I started more seriously doing physical workout, I chose a gym where the athletes exercised. I enjoyed very much their presence and tuned into their way of using their body and muscles. I was not interested in adopting their world view or attitudes and that didn't happen either. But most probably doing workout in that kind of company was quite helpful to me. At least I consider myself to be a sort of athlete too nowadays. I personally consider a guru to be false if there is no personal contact with him. One should be capable of discussing one's issues and doubts personally with the guru on regular basis. If there is no such contact there is no real guru/devotee relationship. In that situation the so called `guru' is primarily an object of idealization. And then his function is more to fill up your inner emptiness and to strengthen the defences against perception of the internal denial of certain aspects of one's personality. Irmeli ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
