--- In [email protected], "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > My post is about a topic one level further up the > > logic tree -- why do you assume that someone is a > > "guru," and *when* you do, why do you assume that > > their opinion has any more weight than your own, > > or anyone else's. > > ** Again, the real bottom line to it, after using all sorts > of logical answers and discussions is that if it is not known > with direct knowing, faith is needed, after using your best > discression you have. The entire way you choose to move forward, > with a Guru, without, each one in the end has to make their own > choice and live with that choice
Yup. I like -- and have no problem with -- the fact that you realize that one's belief that someone is a guru and that their advice is valuable is a matter of faith. That's how I see it as well. One *chooses* one's "authority figures," and IMO one *assigns* authority to them. They don't necessarily *have* any authority *or* knowledge that the seeker doesn't assign to them. But if that assignment helps the seeker, more power to them. > > That strikes me as a far more interesting subject. > > > > Seems to me, from reading your posts, that your > > definition of "guru" is twofold: 1) people that you > > consider to be gurus, and 2) people that one of the > > people you consider a guru have *told* you are gurus. > > > > Please explain to us *why* you consider someone a > > "guru," and *why* someone else should pay any more > > attention to their opinions than to anyone else's. > > **I think you have it right- it works out to my discretion - I > lay out my own criteria for what a real guru is, then see who > fills that prescription. OK, for example, intuiton says Ramana > Maharishi is- now he gives answers to all the questions > you are asking here- you can have a look at it at > www.kundalinisupport.com, under the > section - the need for a guru I'll pass, thanks. While I admire Ramana Maharshi, too, I don't really have much interest in any "teachings" about the "need for a guru." With a few exceptions (him being one of them), teachings that stress the "need for a guru" have historically come from gurus and traditions that have *profited financially* from that teaching. On a more personal level, as we have discussed before, I have no interest in gurus or guru figures, *except* in terms of my overall study of spirituality and how it is manifested in different groups. *That* I find fascinating. Same thing here on FFL...I rarely find myself interested in anything that Maharishi is quoted as having said, or that some other teacher or scripture is quoted as having said, but I'm *continually* fascin- ated by what the *believers* in these teachers and/or these scriptures have to say. *Especially* when there is some cognitive dissonance raised by what they say they believe and how they act. *That* fascinates me endlessly. > > I'm asking not to put you on the spot personally, > > Ron (although it does, a little), but because this > > approach to life and "truth" appears so often on > > this forum. A great number of posts here can be > > deconstructed and analyzed as saying, "X is true > > because guru Y says it's true," or "X is true > > because scripture Y" says it's true. > > > > For those who *make* those kinds of posts, please > > explain to me "Y" you believe that the Y's you cite > > have more of a clue as to what constitutes truth > > than anyone else. :-) > > I can offer you my Guru's general comments about this: And sorry, but I'm really *not interested* in your guru's comments on this. I'm interested in *your* comments and thoughts on this, expressed in *your* words, not hers. There's a difference. I've spent too much of my life listening to the words of someone who considered themselves a guru. I'm bored senseless with it, and find little of interest in any- thing they have to say. But I find myself endlessly interested in what their *followers* have to say, if one can get them to say it in their own words, without a single reference to an authority figure or an auth- ority scripture. The former is like listening to a parrot; I find myself wanting to pop a cracker into the poster's mouth after reading what they have to say. "Nablus want a cracker?" :-) But when I read the posts that Curtis writes, or that Edg writes, or that many other people write here, posts that seem to come from their *own* experience, and their *own* attempts to figure things out (as opposed to having someone figure things out for them), I can feel a strong difference, one that prompts me to respond to *them* as a human being and a fellow seeker. I don't get that same feeling from the parrots. It's probably my limitation, but there you jolly well are, aren't you... :-)
