Guru

[Natha Bhaktyananda]

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.

With blessings,

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