Dead Gurus, Live Gurus, They all Serve Us
Posted: July 30th, 2007, 2:37 pm
Having thrown myself at the feet of both living, and dead “Gurus”, from the little known to the accepted religious icons, I have come to the conclusion that their necessity to the spiritual process is more one of stripping away rather than adding to, the aspirant's process.
By Guru, I mean the word for Enlightened or Liberated Being, who is usually a teacher. While the lower case guru is a term used to denote an expert in any discipline, worldly, or otherwise, I use the capital letter to signify a liberated being (whether or not that individual is indeed liberated ), and it encompasses both living and dead masters, well known, and not so, including, in my mind, Jesus, Buddha and all the great historical beings upon whom a subsequent religious community or corporation, as the case may be, was founded.
Lest those who segregate Jesus and Buddha from the rest, in my mind, they are no different from those legitimate persons who, throughout history, have found their way back to their origins, which was, and is, God. (I don't believe either Jesus nor Buddha ever stated that they were "the only one" who reached this position, although the followers of these gurus no doubt subsequently did so state. Hmmm, I always found that revealing. ) All liberated beings state, whether well known or obscure, without equivocation, “God and I are One.” It is only we, who in our ridiculous effort to rise above the herd, object to lumping others into the same category as our chosen God representative, and thereby feel better, superior, or more chosen then the rest of humankind. (Of course, there are within these beings, some who claim the same status as the Great Ones, and who, indeed, are not, but that is not the point here.)
I think the necessity for a Guru, whether of the “acceptable” kind such as mainstream religions offer us, or of the more eclectic kind such as small “cults” in abundance offer us, is essential at some point along the way toward God. Indeed, I don’t believe it matters a whole lot who it is that we choose as our Guru, or in some cases, by what name we call God, because the process is more about the seeker than the teacher. That is why you can find in mainstream religions both truly enlightened beings, and on the other end of the spectrum, followers, or “sheep” as one Great God being once stated. These Teachers serve both kinds of devotees or disciples, at both ends of the spiritual process. We are all on the same journey, but each goes her own way.
What is at work here, in devotion from any devotee or disciple, toward any God, whether within body, or without, whether with form or without, whether amorphous or solid, is surrender, and it is that surrender which, to my mind at least, is essential for each of us, somewhere along the path. This is the purpose of a Guru, and I believe, its primary purpose. And all Great Teachers stress the importance of a Guru, and in those organizations which are less devotion oriented, and perhaps more intellectual, there is still the stress upon imbibing and integrating the teaching, and that too requires surrender to either the teacher, or the teaching of that teacher. Without surrender, the spiritual process is simply a distraction or worse, ego-centric ornamentation.
In other words, so long as we are driven by the ego and believe ourselves to be separate, without surrender, to an “other”, be it in form, or amorphous, the ego, that self-centered and separated being, however hard and diligently she may work, is prime and in control. Nothing changes, only the knowledge of the ego grows differently and bigger. And the value to surrendering to a Guru is that the “otherness” is obvious, clear, and “there”, you can’t ignore it. (This may well be the reason that the path of devotion, such as most religions are, is usually easier, and less dangerous, than that of a purely intellectual kind, because there is the visible “other” which you can’t obfuscate.)
However, this is a razor’s edge. When surrender becomes comfortable, and an excuse for remaining in the status quo, the time for leaving the Guru, or for the Guru, in graciousness, to throw the disciple out, has arrived. (If God is everything and everywhere, we all must come to that realization, and that obliterates difference, separateness, and otherness.) We all reach that point, at some time. Most of us resist that moment, understandably so, as we, if we can remember our past, probably resisted the first introduction to the Guru to whom we must surrender. Of course, as a really wise old man once stated “Dead Gurus don’t kick-ass!”, he had a point. If the chosen teacher is dead, then it is all to easy for the wily mind to rationalize reluctance to move on, into increased devotion, fear of defilement, or whatever other reason we manage to conjure up in our heads in order to remain comfortable and secure in our present situation.
And that razor’s edge is sharp on the other side: sometimes we SHOULD remain in the safe harbor, even for a life-time, because of our own individual idiosyncratic style. And sometimes the Guru knows better, but sometimes he or she doesn’t. Nobody every said that the process was simple, and the field is full of mines, particularly when you consider that it is the ego-centric mind which is at stake, and that mind which rules until we grow wiser.
With all of this said, only the disciple knows when it is time to move on, and if the Guru is truly who he or she claims to be, that Guru will know as well, and may push the disciple into making the move. For example, two really great Gurus, Jesus and Ramakrishna, both stated that “God is within”, and there is no getting around this truth, whoever it is that states it. That is the goal, that is the truth, and all liberated beings state it in one way or another. Jesus told his disciples in no uncertain terms that he had to “leave in order for the Holy Spirit to enter his disciples”. I guess he left, in a sacrificial manner, as opposed to kicking the disciple out or seemingly betraying the disciple in order to get him to leave. This sacrifice is not unique, there are many stories of other Gurus who have died in serving their disciples.
But, by whatever method is used, the end result is to either walk willingly toward, or be thrown into, “within”.
By Guru, I mean the word for Enlightened or Liberated Being, who is usually a teacher. While the lower case guru is a term used to denote an expert in any discipline, worldly, or otherwise, I use the capital letter to signify a liberated being (whether or not that individual is indeed liberated ), and it encompasses both living and dead masters, well known, and not so, including, in my mind, Jesus, Buddha and all the great historical beings upon whom a subsequent religious community or corporation, as the case may be, was founded.
Lest those who segregate Jesus and Buddha from the rest, in my mind, they are no different from those legitimate persons who, throughout history, have found their way back to their origins, which was, and is, God. (I don't believe either Jesus nor Buddha ever stated that they were "the only one" who reached this position, although the followers of these gurus no doubt subsequently did so state. Hmmm, I always found that revealing. ) All liberated beings state, whether well known or obscure, without equivocation, “God and I are One.” It is only we, who in our ridiculous effort to rise above the herd, object to lumping others into the same category as our chosen God representative, and thereby feel better, superior, or more chosen then the rest of humankind. (Of course, there are within these beings, some who claim the same status as the Great Ones, and who, indeed, are not, but that is not the point here.)
I think the necessity for a Guru, whether of the “acceptable” kind such as mainstream religions offer us, or of the more eclectic kind such as small “cults” in abundance offer us, is essential at some point along the way toward God. Indeed, I don’t believe it matters a whole lot who it is that we choose as our Guru, or in some cases, by what name we call God, because the process is more about the seeker than the teacher. That is why you can find in mainstream religions both truly enlightened beings, and on the other end of the spectrum, followers, or “sheep” as one Great God being once stated. These Teachers serve both kinds of devotees or disciples, at both ends of the spiritual process. We are all on the same journey, but each goes her own way.
What is at work here, in devotion from any devotee or disciple, toward any God, whether within body, or without, whether with form or without, whether amorphous or solid, is surrender, and it is that surrender which, to my mind at least, is essential for each of us, somewhere along the path. This is the purpose of a Guru, and I believe, its primary purpose. And all Great Teachers stress the importance of a Guru, and in those organizations which are less devotion oriented, and perhaps more intellectual, there is still the stress upon imbibing and integrating the teaching, and that too requires surrender to either the teacher, or the teaching of that teacher. Without surrender, the spiritual process is simply a distraction or worse, ego-centric ornamentation.
In other words, so long as we are driven by the ego and believe ourselves to be separate, without surrender, to an “other”, be it in form, or amorphous, the ego, that self-centered and separated being, however hard and diligently she may work, is prime and in control. Nothing changes, only the knowledge of the ego grows differently and bigger. And the value to surrendering to a Guru is that the “otherness” is obvious, clear, and “there”, you can’t ignore it. (This may well be the reason that the path of devotion, such as most religions are, is usually easier, and less dangerous, than that of a purely intellectual kind, because there is the visible “other” which you can’t obfuscate.)
However, this is a razor’s edge. When surrender becomes comfortable, and an excuse for remaining in the status quo, the time for leaving the Guru, or for the Guru, in graciousness, to throw the disciple out, has arrived. (If God is everything and everywhere, we all must come to that realization, and that obliterates difference, separateness, and otherness.) We all reach that point, at some time. Most of us resist that moment, understandably so, as we, if we can remember our past, probably resisted the first introduction to the Guru to whom we must surrender. Of course, as a really wise old man once stated “Dead Gurus don’t kick-ass!”, he had a point. If the chosen teacher is dead, then it is all to easy for the wily mind to rationalize reluctance to move on, into increased devotion, fear of defilement, or whatever other reason we manage to conjure up in our heads in order to remain comfortable and secure in our present situation.
And that razor’s edge is sharp on the other side: sometimes we SHOULD remain in the safe harbor, even for a life-time, because of our own individual idiosyncratic style. And sometimes the Guru knows better, but sometimes he or she doesn’t. Nobody every said that the process was simple, and the field is full of mines, particularly when you consider that it is the ego-centric mind which is at stake, and that mind which rules until we grow wiser.
With all of this said, only the disciple knows when it is time to move on, and if the Guru is truly who he or she claims to be, that Guru will know as well, and may push the disciple into making the move. For example, two really great Gurus, Jesus and Ramakrishna, both stated that “God is within”, and there is no getting around this truth, whoever it is that states it. That is the goal, that is the truth, and all liberated beings state it in one way or another. Jesus told his disciples in no uncertain terms that he had to “leave in order for the Holy Spirit to enter his disciples”. I guess he left, in a sacrificial manner, as opposed to kicking the disciple out or seemingly betraying the disciple in order to get him to leave. This sacrifice is not unique, there are many stories of other Gurus who have died in serving their disciples.
But, by whatever method is used, the end result is to either walk willingly toward, or be thrown into, “within”.