Is a Guru necessary?

[Toby Stimpson]

Hello all,

I've often thought of myself as a maverick, making decisions for my spiritual life and health by my own way. Even if someone told me something and I couldn't understand what they were saying, I've come to understand what they were saying and came to see it from their perspective. ofcourse there are a lot of times when this hasn't happened and I still don't and cannot see something from their perspective at all. So, I've grappled with this idea of Guruship, and the idea that one can totally and without criticism take the words of a Guru as complete truth, trusting that these people know what they are talking about (or that they are Higher beings who are speaking as Divine). I can certainly think of a couple of Gurus who I would trust without really needing to be critical... there are also quite a few that I am very critical of based on my own understanding and their actions.

So my question is... and this can relate to any eastern path really... is a Guru necessary to attain self and universal realization? In some schools of Hinduism, as well as Sikhism the idea of the Guru is central because they are the embodiments of the Divine. Many of these Gurus though are legendary beings now. Modern day Gurus like the late Swami Srila Prabhupada, Sathya Sai Baba and even the late Maharishi certainly have built up legends in their sects but are not above criticism. I wonder if the older legendary Gurus like Guru Nanak or Ramanuja or Adi Shankara have become more credible as tradition and years pile up? Although I gravitate towards Shankara's Advaitan philosophy, my understanding of Vedenta is primarily based on sectarian ways of taking up the broad categories and philosophies... which are driven by Gurus and their sects who compose the broader schools of philosophy. Adi Shankara is certainly not without some criticism, especially his anti-Buddhist biases... but I still see him as very credible.

So... to end this ramble... what do you guys think... are teachers or Gurus THAT important as both interpreters and teachers of religious philosophy... or can someone create or find their own way and still have a clear understanding of what scriptures or examples mean??

[David19]

I can't say I know much about Eastern paths in depth, but, I think, it depends on the tradition, in Tantra (the proper one), and other initatory traditions, a Guru is necessary to to travel the path towards Enlightenment and true, inner, freedom, as, for example, the mantra's received during an initiation will be more special and have a greater affect than the one just read in a book (true mantra's can affect things magically, but, it has to be learnt mouth to ear, not just read from a book, that doesn't bestow any kind of magical power). Now, it is open to abuse, and has been abused by many, and I'm not sure I'd trust a lot of the ones you see, especially in western bookstores, claiming to be a "Guru", as a lot are just con artists (and the ones that are not, are, probably, just misinformed about the practices they claim to teach).

I'd say it depends, you should always use your judgements, and keep your wits about you, but, if you ever delve into proper Tantra, or other similar traditions, you need a Guru, a real one.

[Toby Stimpson]

I can't say I know much about Eastern paths in depth, but, I think, it depends on the tradition, in Tantra (the proper one), and other initatory traditions, a Guru is necessary to to travel the path towards Enlightenment and true, inner, freedom, as, for example, the mantra's received during an initiation will be more special and have a greater affect than the one just read in a book (true mantra's can affect things magically, but, it has to be learnt mouth to ear, not just read from a book, that doesn't bestow any kind of magical power).

That sounds about the same in other parts of Hinduism. The role of the Guru is to transmit and teach an interpretation of scripture and religious practice to students, and to further study texts and contribute to the religious literature. I can understand why Gurus are important, especially since at tiems through out history, literacy was quite low and so the only way religion and teachings could be passed down was through a Guru or priests (same with any other religion).

I just really question whether or not that role is becoming useless now. I mean a Guru, as opposed to a priest who performs very different duties, is viewed to be in some traditions living incarnations of Gods and thus absolutely Divine and right. The duties that they perform are as both religious but also social leaders. Many heads of organizations I can think of right now...such as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (The Maharishi's Sampradya) leads peace and social missions. I think this might come back to the idea of validity for me... is my own interpretation and capacity to interpret as eqaul to a Guru, and if it isn't should the words of a Guru be absolutely necessary?



Now, it is open to abuse, and has been abused by many, and I'm not sure I'd trust a lot of the ones you see, especially in western bookstores, claiming to be a "Guru", as a lot are just con artists (and the ones that are not, are, probably, just misinformed about the practices they claim to teach).

Thats an entirely different issue. There are a lot of Gurus in the west who are definitly influenced or inspired by Western religious or spiritual traditions...or as you said are crooks. But there are also quite a few Gurus who are bonafide, initiated and heads of Indian based sects. So It's hit and miss, as with any religion really.


I'd say it depends, you should always use your judgements, and keep your wits about you, but, if you ever delve into proper Tantra, or other similar traditions, you need a Guru, a real one.

Mhm, you raise a great point. With traditions that are heavily based on practice and oral teachings, having a guide there is important. I think my question more directed towards spiritual authority. Tantra is a mystical piece to the religion... in other more philosophical traditions where metaphysics as opposed to practice are more important then I still wonder if the place of that person can be supplanted by research.

[David19]

That sounds about the same in other parts of Hinduism. The role of the Guru is to transmit and teach an interpretation of scripture and religious practice to students, and to further study texts and contribute to the religious literature. I can understand why Gurus are important, especially since at tiems through out history, literacy was quite low and so the only way religion and teachings could be passed down was through a Guru or priests (same with any other religion).

I just really question whether or not that role is becoming useless now. I mean a Guru, as opposed to a priest who performs very different duties, is viewed to be in some traditions living incarnations of Gods and thus absolutely Divine and right. The duties that they perform are as both religious but also social leaders. Many heads of organizations I can think of right now...such as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (The Maharishi's Sampradya) leads peace and social missions. I think this might come back to the idea of validity for me... is my own interpretation and capacity to interpret as eqaul to a Guru, and if it isn't should the words of a Guru be absolutely necessary?

I would say that, if it's just for your own personal spiritual practice, your interpretation can be just as valid, as long as you aren't claiming to pass down secrets. Where a Guru is necessary is to pass on secret teachings, like in Tantra (or in certain sects of Sufism, or in the Kabbalah, where, to practice it properly, at least, in Jewish mysticism, you need a qualified teacher), whether it's passing on certain mantras, or passing on a mystical energy so the student is connected with it (I think something like that happens in Sufism), etc. I'd say if you're just interpreting the Myths, or whatever, for yourself, that interpretation can be just as valid, but, that's just my opinion, I'm not Hindu, so, I can't say for sure.




Thats an entirely different issue. There are a lot of Gurus in the west who are definitly influenced or inspired by Western religious or spiritual traditions...or as you said are crooks. But there are also quite a few Gurus who are bonafide, initiated and heads of Indian based sects. So It's hit and miss, as with any religion really.

True, BTW, this is kind of an related question, but, do you know if there are any qualified teachers for Kundalini yoga?, it's just there's a lot of misinformation out there about it, some seem to present it as just another form of yoga that will increase the energy of bored housewives, when there's a lot more to it than that, are there any qualified teachers that can teach it as it's taught traditionally? (hope that made some sense :)).

[green aventurine]

I would say that, if it's just for your own personal spiritual practice, your interpretation can be just as valid, as long as you aren't claiming to pass down secrets. Where a Guru is necessary is to pass on secret teachings, like in Tantra (or in certain sects of Sufism, or in the Kabbalah, where, to practice it properly, at least, in Jewish mysticism, you need a qualified teacher), whether it's passing on certain mantras, or passing on a mystical energy so the student is connected with it (I think something like that happens in Sufism), etc. I'd say if you're just interpreting the Myths, or whatever, for yourself, that interpretation can be just as valid, but, that's just my opinion, I'm not Hindu, so, I can't say for sure.

I'm not the best person to answer your questions, Toby, but I would go along with this as a starting point.

If you're asking whether the method of authority is valid or a good route, I would say it's up to the individual and their goals but not one for me personally. No matter how much I trust somebody's judgement, I will always think about what they tell me, if it's important, rather than just accept it. If I feel I have good reason to reject it, I will do. But that's me. We're all different. Also I'm not planning on reconstructing, continuining or teaching a specific religion/tradition etc.

With respect to this:



I think this might come back to the idea of validity for me... is my own interpretation and capacity to interpret as eqaul to a Guru, and if it isn't should the words of a Guru be absolutely necessary?



and your capacity to interpret it being equal to a Guru. I seem to remember the last time we talked you told me you were doing a comparative religion degree. I also enjoy reading your posts and find them intelligent, so I don't see any particular reason to say that you couldn't interpret it as well if you put your mind to it.

If for some reason you couldn't interpret it as well (assuming the religious text has only one true/valid interpretation), then I guess it would depend on your goals whether you needed a Guru or not.

[Meabh23]

Hello all,

I've often thought of myself as a maverick, making decisions for my spiritual life and health by my own way. Even if someone told me something and I couldn't understand what they were saying, I've come to understand what they were saying and came to see it from their perspective. ofcourse there are a lot of times when this hasn't happened and I still don't and cannot see something from their perspective at all. So, I've grappled with this idea of Guruship, and the idea that one can totally and without criticism take the words of a Guru as complete truth, trusting that these people know what they are talking about (or that they are Higher beings who are speaking as Divine). I can certainly think of a couple of Gurus who I would trust without really needing to be critical... there are also quite a few that I am very critical of based on my own understanding and their actions.

So my question is... and this can relate to any eastern path really... is a Guru necessary to attain self and universal realization? In some schools of Hinduism, as well as Sikhism the idea of the Guru is central because they are the embodiments of the Divine. Many of these Gurus though are legendary beings now. Modern day Gurus like the late Swami Srila Prabhupada, Sathya Sai Baba and even the late Maharishi certainly have built up legends in their sects but are not above criticism. I wonder if the older legendary Gurus like Guru Nanak or Ramanuja or Adi Shankara have become more credible as tradition and years pile up? Although I gravitate towards Shankara's Advaitan philosophy, my understanding of Vedenta is primarily based on sectarian ways of taking up the broad categories and philosophies... which are driven by Gurus and their sects who compose the broader schools of philosophy. Adi Shankara is certainly not without some criticism, especially his anti-Buddhist biases... but I still see him as very credible.

So... to end this ramble... what do you guys think... are teachers or Gurus THAT important as both interpreters and teachers of religious philosophy... or can someone create or find their own way and still have a clear understanding of what scriptures or examples mean??

I can't speak about Hindu paths or even many Buddhist paths and the need for a Guru. However, maybe we could approach this in a different manner.

Obviously, there is in Buddhism, the idea of this guy Siddhartha Gautama who found enlightenment on his own one day. NOT! He also had teachers and practiced as much as he could with their ideas and rituals and things like that. As much as he could. Then at some point he had to go at it alone and face up to life himself. I think this is a good way of seeing it.

We need teachers and mentors, of course. But at some point, and especially in Tibetan strains of Buddhism like Nyingma and Kagyu (I can't say much about Gelug and Sakya interpretations except that they have similar ideas), the true purpose of the guru is to make him or herself redundant....i.e. not needed anymore.

[David19]

I can't speak about Hindu paths or even many Buddhist paths and the need for a Guru. However, maybe we could approach this in a different manner.

Obviously, there is in Buddhism, the idea of this guy Siddhartha Gautama who found enlightenment on his own one day. NOT! He also had teachers and practiced as much as he could with their ideas and rituals and things like that. As much as he could. Then at some point he had to go at it alone and face up to life himself. I think this is a good way of seeing it.

We need teachers and mentors, of course. But at some point, and especially in Tibetan strains of Buddhism like Nyingma and Kagyu (I can't say much about Gelug and Sakya interpretations except that they have similar ideas), the true purpose of the guru is to make him or herself redundant....i.e. not needed anymore.

That's quite a cool explanation and explains a lot :).

[Toby Stimpson]

Meabh tashi dele!!! I'm sorry I have not come back to this thread in a while. Thanks for all your replies, I want to address them all :)



Obviously, there is in Buddhism, the idea of this guy Siddhartha Gautama who found enlightenment on his own one day. NOT! He also had teachers and practiced as much as he could with their ideas and rituals and things like that. As much as he could. Then at some point he had to go at it alone and face up to life himself. I think this is a good way of seeing it.

Mhm, the Yogis and Jainas in the woods when he first left his palace to train. I think this is a great point, but what I think interesting with the story in the Jataka Tales is that he ultimatly rejected their teachings because he fundamentally found them flawed. But this is a good point.



We need teachers and mentors, of course. But at some point, and especially in Tibetan strains of Buddhism like Nyingma and Kagyu (I can't say much about Gelug and Sakya interpretations except that they have similar ideas), the true purpose of the guru is to make him or herself redundant....i.e. not needed anymore.

In Buddhism I know, atleast in some Mahayana sects...not too sure about Therevada, you're right this is the goal of the teacher. In Hinduism I find it questionable because I see a lot of followers who will follow their Guru and worship him or her as though he/she is the embodiment of a God, or a God themself. In some cases, the theology aroun d these Gurus is that they ARE deities in human form. I guess my question then becomes, for someone in that tradition... can they just decide to discount or disagree with the words of their Guru if that Guru is viewed to be a living God. I think this is also what gave rise to the notion, atleast amongst my friends, that to try to go it alone would be to literilly be defying a God or ignoring their words and not reaching Moksha. In Hinduism also, there are widespread pressures to accept a guru, whether it be a Human or an abstract God because of the idea that one cannot achieve liberation without proper guidance. but once one accepts a Guru, they are bound to that being until they die.

[Toby Stimpson]

Thankyou for response :). I should clarify a bit before I go on, but you raise some great points. I am not asking because of a confusion or a feeling of insecurity on my part but more as a way to start conversation and debate.



If you're asking whether the method of authority is valid or a good route, I would say it's up to the individual and their goals but not one for me personally. No matter how much I trust somebody's judgement, I will always think about what they tell me, if it's important, rather than just accept it. If I feel I have good reason to reject it, I will do. But that's me. We're all different. Also I'm not planning on reconstructing, continuining or teaching a specific religion/tradition etc.

This is a great point. There are quite a few people I know who are not really religious but have some ties to the religion. They belong to a particular tradition because their parents and family are initiated. I think this idea of critical thinking comes into play... but I always wonder with something as subjective as religious 'truth' can someone truly think critically if they are surrounded by a specific interpretation. I mean, I guess it's easy for me to feel I can think critically about Hinduism, but I'm not socially or culturally constructed to be a part of it.



and your capacity to interpret it being equal to a Guru. I seem to remember the last time we talked you told me you were doing a comparative religion degree. I also enjoy reading your posts and find them intelligent, so I don't see any particular reason to say that you couldn't interpret it as well if you put your mind to it.

If for some reason you couldn't interpret it as well (assuming the religious text has only one true/valid interpretation), then I guess it would depend on your goals whether you needed a Guru or not.

Thankyou, I enjoy your posts as well :). I think that my meaning here was that as an outsider who doesn't know the language, or even the full backstory on certain elements that are taken for granted... I always wonder if I as a white person can fully be able to say I can interpret something.

But this aside, going back to this idea of religious objectivity and truth... if a Guru tells me that he experiances God and tries to describe it to me... if I don't know what that feeling is then I cannot begin to interpret that. Likewise with scriptures and what not, I am a single person who is well read... but a Guru has been taught interpretation and what to look at by his Guru and so on and so on.

His/her credibility comes from a successive line of Gurus that each taught and expanded on what they were taught from previous teachers and masters. Having studied with people who were well versed for their entire lives and then teaching that to new students creates a bond between the subject and the Guru. I would not have that intimate a connection if i was just going alone, and would have to resort to drawing from the context that the guru knows in order to teach or equip myself. Ofcourse we all know that religion is never objective and the 'truth' of religion can be taken up in many ways. So back to my original question of whether a Guru is necessary, I myself would say they are not because contexts and meanings can be learned and discovered for people with the know or with a particular way of viewing and looking at the world, but they are necessary for some people who may not have the time or understanding of words and practices.

But even then, thats problematic, because the Guru is then placed on this pedastal of being the instigator of worldview and even action. Same with priests as well... priests fill the same role in many ways. hmmmm, I'm not sure where to go with this.

[Glowy]

IMO- a Guru is like a degree for University. One may succeed in a field that she/he has no degree in, but to be taken seriously by the mass may be difficult, if one chose to reach out to others and was asked.. where did you study?

I do not knock the Guru, I just question how much is taught from one, and how much is self learned. I find a combo of both to be of value to me.

[David19]

I think this article may be very relevant for this thread:

http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html

It's about the place of a spiritual teacher or guru in Tibetan Buddhism, and how to avoid the dangers associated with the idea.

This part is quite interesting:


We need to be realistic about spiritual teachers: if we want to learn something, a teacher is needed, or is at least very useful. How far would we have come with learning to read and write without a teacher?

"If you are only studying Dharma for the sake of study, sake of development of your understanding of Dharma, if you are only studying Dharma intellectually, just intellectually on intellectual level, then I don't think you need a guru-disciple relationship. And also you can study with all kinds of teachers. It's like going to university. You study with different teachers or professors, and you go on, you move on. But if you wish to commit yourself to the path, then it is necessary, because one needs to know how to accomplish the realization, how to practice the Dharma."
Zasep Tulku Rinpoche
In Buddhism it is essential to realise that the teacher is ultimately important because he/she can lead us to our own inner wisdom - our own 'inner guru'. We need to develop our own wisdom and insight to become a teacher and in the end, even a Buddha ourselves. In that sense, a guru is like our spiritual mother; in the beginning of the path, we are pretty helpless and need much help and guidance; but in the end, we should be able to stand on our own feet and be self-sufficient.

I think it makes quite a few good points (the whole site, IMO, is great).

[green aventurine]

Thankyou for response . I should clarify a bit before I go on, but you raise some great points. I am not asking because of a confusion or a feeling of insecurity on my part but more as a way to start conversation and debate.

You're welcome, Toby. I wasn't quite sure why you were asking it -- it did cross my mind it might have been confusion or feeling a bit unconfident (which surprised me as you don't come across like that from your posts) so apologies about that and thanks for clarifying that.

This is a great point. There are quite a few people I know who are not really religious but have some ties to the religion. They belong to a particular tradition because their parents and family are initiated. I think this idea of critical thinking comes into play... but I always wonder with something as subjective as religious 'truth' can someone truly think critically if they are surrounded by a specific interpretation. I mean, I guess it's easy for me to feel I can think critically about Hinduism, but I'm not socially or culturally constructed to be a part of it.

Thankyou, I enjoy your posts as well . I think that my meaning here was that as an outsider who doesn't know the language, or even the full backstory on certain elements that are taken for granted... I always wonder if I as a white person can fully be able to say I can interpret something.

You seem to be raising the issues here about whether we can think outside the (concepts/viewpoints? of the) culture we are born in or have been programmed by in order to understand other points of view e.g. worldviews or religions from other cultures and also whether we can translate adequately one language into another etc or fully understand a culture we hadn't been born into - is that right? I know this isn't the best article but is it kind of in the area that you are getting at?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_Determinism


But this aside, going back to this idea of religious objectivity and truth... if a Guru tells me that he experiances God and tries to describe it to me... if I don't know what that feeling is then I cannot begin to interpret that. Likewise with scriptures and what not, I am a single person who is well read... but a Guru has been taught interpretation and what to look at by his Guru and so on and so on.

What do the words: "experiences", ‘God’, "know”, "feeling", and “interpret” mean for you in this paragraph or how would you define them?
The reason I ask is because I'm not quite sure what the philosophical question/issue you're asking/raising here is in the sentence I underlined.

His/her credibility comes from a successive line of Gurus that each taught and expanded on what they were taught from previous teachers and masters. Having studied with people who were well versed for their entire lives and then teaching that to new students creates a bond between the subject and the Guru.

I agree.

I would not have that intimate a connection if i was just going alone, and would have to resort to drawing from the context that the guru knows in order to teach or equip myself.

I would say that was okay as long as you weren't teaching somebody else or pretending to be a master/guru in a specific tradition etc.

Ofcourse we all know that religion is never objective and the 'truth' of religion can be taken up in many ways. So back to my original question of whether a Guru is necessary, I myself would say they are not because contexts and meanings can be learned and discovered for people with the know or with a particular way of viewing and looking at the world, but they are necessary for some people who may not have the time or understanding of words and practices.

But even then, thats problematic, because the Guru is then placed on this pedastal of being the instigator of worldview and even action. Same with priests as well... priests fill the same role in many ways. hmmmm, I'm not sure where to go with this.

I'm not that familiar with gurus (I had a little bit of a look at Osho a while ago although I'm guessing he is not what you have in mind – maybe someone like Gurdjeif?) and exactly what their role is:

If a guru’s role is to interpret or provide a commentary on a metaphysical picture of reality or an ethical code from an old standard religious text or master, for example, then I would say they're not particularly necessary at all although why bother reinventing the wheel and why not have a read of what they have to say and go from there?

If a Guru’s role is to actually present a completely new picture of reality and ethical code then at a minimum you can't really avoid reading their book or hearing a lecture from them etc.

If the role of the guru is to transmit an attunement or energy adjustment or whatever, then yes, it's a bit problematic if you want to follow a particular style to do without contact with one. I'm more familiar with Reiki although I'm not Reiki trained but I would say it would be impossible to call yourself a Reiki practitioner in the Usui style for example, if you hadn't actually been attuned by somebody whose lineage stemmed back to Dr Usui - unless you got given the symbols direct from whoever gave them to him, I suppose. I don't think you can get attuned in that particular style from a book or working it out by yourself etc.

If the role of the guru is to produce a new teacher and continue the lineage, then as you say, actual contact with the guru would be necessary, really, IMO.

Finally, if the role of a guru is to actually speak for a deity itself as an intermediary between a person and the divine, I would say that's not really my particular path as such and I like a direct link to the 'divine' without an intermediary. If people need or prefer an intermediary, that's fair enough but it's not for me in general and in any of these roles above including this one, I wouldn't say there was any obligation, for me personally, to agree with a Guru if I felt they had stated something wrong.

I hope this makes sense. Like I said, I'm not sure if I was the best person to answer your questions.

ETA:

David's quote and link seems to point to another role for a guru -- psychotherapist or counsellor almost or even spiritual midwife, perhaps. This would probably be best done with the guru if that was a necessary part of the path/system, IMO.

[green aventurine]

I think this article may be very relevant for this thread:

http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html

It's about the place of a spiritual teacher or guru in Tibetan Buddhism, and how to avoid the dangers associated with the idea.

This part is quite interesting:



I think it makes quite a few good points (the whole site, IMO, is great).

I agree. Thanks for the link, David. Just having a look at it now.

[David19]

I agree. Thanks for the link, David. Just having a look at it now.

Thanks, glad you like it, I'm working my way through the whole site, as it's a great resource for those interested in Buddhism particularly Tibetan Buddhism (which I definitely am).