The Two Kinds of Guru by Arthur Osborne (The Mountain Path, July 1969) For those who aspire to proceed beyond belief to experience in religion it has normally been held necessary to follow a guru or spiritual director. It is not really correct to translate the word guru as teacher because, although he may incidentally expound doctrine, his main function is the transmission of an influence which will fortify the disciple in his inner quest and his guidance of the disciple, verbally or in silence, on that quest. What, then, is the nature of the guru? Ramana Maharshi said: The Guru is the formless Self within each one of us. He may appear as a body to guide us, but that is only his disguise. And the author of the article from which this is quoted goes on to say: It appears from this that to be consciously the Self is to be consciously the Guru.*1 This statement involves the following doctrinal position. The Supreme Spirit (Paramatma) is the true self (atma) of each person (jiva) and would naturally give right spiritual understanding and guidance, but in most cases the conscious mind is shut off from this by the ego-sense (ahankara), that is the belief in ones existence as a separate individual entity. The impulse arises to return to ones Source but the mind is too estranged to perceive and follow the path directly. Since one mistakes oneself for a separate human being, one can respond to the guidance only through a manifested Guru whom one mistakes for another human being, although he himself is aware of his universal nature. Therefore the Tamil poet-saint Thayumanavar compares the Guru to a deer being used as a decoy to capture another deer. The Maharshi said that the function of the outer Guru is only to awaken the inner Guru in the heart. The above refers only to the ideal or perfect Guru who is in a state of constant, unwavering consciousness of his universal nature (and it will be observed that in writing it I have spelled the word Guru with a capital letter). But this is a very rare thing. Usually a guru or spiritual director is a member of a spiritual hierarchy who has been invested with the authority and function of directing others without having himself broken free from the existential (as distinct from theoretical) illusion of his individual state. With regard to the guru in this sense I will limit myself to five observations. 1. The power that is conveyed is to be regarded as valid within its limits, just as is the power to perform sacraments that is conveyed to a priest by his ordination. 2. Nevertheless, too great expectations are not to be placed on such direction, since a guide cannot normally lead others farther than he has gone himself. 3. A guru who has not transcended the individual state is liable to individual failings. Being revered as a guru may particularly, for instance, give rise to the faults of arrogance and hypocrisy. Such faults are infectious and liable to be caught by the disciples. The guru may be compared to a pipeline bringing the waters of life to thirsty men; if the pipe has not been well cleaned inside, the waters that quench their thirst may also carry the germs of typhoid or cholera. 4. This is an age when traditional forms are losing their rigidity. All the Hindu spiritual masters since Ramakrishna have recognized this, including the Maharshi. It is a time when the Spirit bloweth where it listeth and many cases of spontaneous awakening to Truth without the mediation of a guru are reported. These, of course, need further effort and discipline to establish them firmly, but so also does the initiation given by a guru. 5. The Maharishi indicated before shedding the body that he would still be the Guru. Ample evidence has accrued (if any were needed) that this is so. Perhaps this last point needs to be amplified, as it is not usual for a Guru to continue to function as such after physical death, though there have been cases. According to the ancient traditional teaching reiterated by the Maharshi, a man does not become one with the Self by attaining Liberation (or Realization); he simply realizes his innate, preexisting oneness. Also he does not merge in the Absolute at death (thus becoming, as some have supposed, incapable of performing any individual function) since he already was one with the Absolute. The Maharshi stated explicitly that there is no difference between the Jivan-Mukta (one liberated while embodied) and the Videha-Mukta (one liberated after death). Once when asked whether a Liberated Man (he always used the Sanskrit term Jnani, meaning Man of Knowledge for this) still continued to perform a function after death, he answered curtly, Some may. This assertion is also to be found in the Brahma Sutras, one of the three basic Hindu scriptures. When some of Bhagavans followers asked him shortly before his own death what they could do for guidance after he left them, he made the curt reply: You attach too much importance to the body. The implication obviously was that only the body was leaving them; he was not. In saying that there is ample evidence that this is so, I put in the parenthesis if any were needed so as not to seem to be suggesting that the Maharshis words need any corroboration. They do not. The sort of evidence I have in mind is testimony of those many who have found guidance and support from the Maharshi either in dream or vision or formlessly since his death. Two examples that could be quoted are the poem A Beacon Still by S.P.Mukherji in the January 1964 issue of The Mountain Path and the article How the Maharshi Came to Me by G.N.Daley in that of January 1967. Finally, reverting to the two types of guru it should be said that the distinction is important because it sometimes happens that the theoretical explanation of the first type, the Sad-Guru or Divine Guru, is used to justify one who is in fact of the second type, the appointed functionary. This can cause theoretical confusion and actual danger
Posted on: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:31:58 +0000