NEED of GURU

[Wannabe Yogi]

Ravana was learned

Ravana was learned and he did much Tapas to get a lot of power. The scriptures say that Ravana was liberated at the end of his life because he HATED the lord Rama so much that his mind was always on HIM. He died at the hands of the Lord. Still like you I would not want him as my GURU.

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Surya Deva,

Patanjali Yoga Sutras describe eight Siddhis and in the end say that to proceed further one should GIVE UP those Siddhis. The Siddhis are just an obstacle to enlightenment as per the Patanjali Sutras- I mention it because you mentioned Patanjali as enlightened before.

I am not going to justify to you again Lord Krishna's leelas as you say that you believe they are justified. But, I will tell you why Ravana was nowhere near enlightenment. Throughout Ramayana, Ravana has been an epitome of ego (Ahamkaar). Unless the ego is gone, one CANNOT be enlightened. Jnana with ego is useless and is only an intellectual futile exercise.

There are two ways to worship the God. One is with love- that is the path of Bhakta and the other way is the way of enemity- total enemity. This is the path of the Asuras. Both the Bhaktas and Asuras could have intellectual Jnana, but only the Asuras are full of ego. The combination of Jnana and ego is even more explosive.

Most of the infamous Asuras did Tapasya and obtained Siddhis from Brahmaji and Lord Shiva. That does not make them enlightened because immediately after obtaining Siddhis they misused it to satisfy their egos.

Regards,

Regards,

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The best indicator if somebody is enlightened is whether they have siddhis.

Siddhis can be faked. I would not trust Siddhis. Do they live in an unattached manor or Do they desire wealth? If you watch them for a while see if they are free while in the body. This can be faked on a stage or on TV. It cannot be done in your day to day life for long periods of time.

 

[Surya Deva]

Namaste Satsangi,

Patanjali describes much more than just 8 siddhis. The entire third chapter of the Yogasutras is dedicated to various siddhis you can develop by doing samyama on different objects. Yes, he does say that one should develop detachment to the siddhis, but he does not say that siddhis in themselves are to be shunned. Rather, they should be treated like everything else we observe with a detached mind. If Patanjali did not want us to develop siddhis, he would not have spent an entire chapter giving very detailed instructions on how to develop various siddhis.

The reason siddhis are very important is because they are signs you are progressing in your sadhana. If you are not experiencing any siddhis at all after 10 years of sadhana, then it is a sign something is wrong in your sadhana and you need to get help from somebody to go further. Siddhis are basically biproducts of what happens when you reach high levels of mental control. If you do not have siddhis you do not have high levels of mental control.

Ravana had siddhis because he had reached very high levels of mental control through his tapasya. Then clearly he is further along on the path of enlightenment and reaching ultimate liberation than the ordinary person with no siddhis. The fact that he then used his high levels of mental control for evil purposes was basically his failure to develop detachment to them and because he was so high up on the path, he fell just as badly. All of us are going to have to face the ego trips that come when we develop siddhis, but this is a part of the path and if you are at the siddhi level, you are very high up on the path.

 

[Surya Deva]

Siddhis can be faked. I would not trust Siddhis. Do they live in an unattached manor or Do they desire wealth? If you watch them for a while see if they are free while in the body. This can be faked on a stage or on TV. It cannot be done in your day to day life for long periods of time.

It depends how convincing the display is. If somebody levitated in the air right in front of me several feet into the air or teleported in front of me, I will be sure enough convinced. One of the most dramatic examples of siddhi display I have read is by mahavatar babaji who materialises an entire palace out of thin air for the initiation of Swami Yogananada paramhansa, explaining that he does this by simply forming the atoms into whatever he wills, just as the entire universe is held by a cosmic will.

There are many saintly people who live in an unattached manner, who do not desire wealth and can live like that all their life. Such as saints like Mother Theressa. It does not mean that they are enlightened though - they are just nice people. The motives for being nice is often a religious belief.

Highly developed souls are not always nice. They are marked by their higher mental powers, but they have ego issues like all of us and experience emotions, and may not use those higher mental powers for good purposes always. I really am struggling with this assumption that highly developed souls must behave in a very particular way like being pious, compassionate, loving and living in poverty.

 

[Satsangi]

Namaste Satsangi,

Patanjali describes much more than just 8 siddhis. The entire third chapter of the Yogasutras is dedicated to various siddhis you can develop by doing samyama on different objects. Yes, he does say that one should develop detachment to the siddhis, but he does not say that siddhis in themselves are to be shunned. Rather, they should be treated like everything else we observe with a detached mind. If Patanjali did not want us to develop siddhis, he would not have spent an entire chapter giving very detailed instructions on how to develop various siddhis.

The reason siddhis are very important is because they are signs you are progressing in your sadhana. If you are not experiencing any siddhis at all after 10 years of sadhana, then it is a sign something is wrong in your sadhana and you need to get help from somebody to go further. Siddhis are basically biproducts of what happens when you reach high levels of mental control. If you do not have siddhis you do not have high levels of mental control.

Ravana had siddhis because he had reached very high levels of mental control through his tapasya. Then clearly he is further along on the path of enlightenment and reaching ultimate liberation than the ordinary person with no siddhis. The fact that he then used his high levels of mental control for evil purposes was basically his failure to develop detachment to them and because he was so high up on the path, he fell just as badly. All of us are going to have to face the ego trips that come when we develop siddhis, but this is a part of the path and if you are at the siddhi level, you are very high up on the path.

Surya Devaji,

I think you have just explained what I was saying- Ravana failed to be enlightened and yet he had Siddhis. Hence, he was not fit to be a Guru. By the same token, a person showing Siddhis may be like Ravana. I would rather look at a person's day to day life and actions primarily rather than Siddhis- i.e if he has any shred of ego or not- just like Wannabe Yogi puts it- whether they live "free" or as an Atman while residing in the current body.

The way I see the Yoga Sutras is - all or none - either you are a Siddha Yogi (enlightened) or you are not. What you are calling "very high up on the path" does not mean much as it does not translate into enlightenment- this is elusive till one has reached Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

The Samyama on all the tattvas produce many types of Siddhis, but Ashta Siddhis are the main ones- as described in 3/45 of the Yoga Sutras- these are anima, ladhima, mahima, prapti, prakamya, i****a, va****va and kamavasayitva. I agree the "detachment" is what I meant by "giving up" the Siddhis.

Yoga is not the only way to the Supreme. Patanjali Rishi defines Yoga as "Chitta vritti nirodhaha" meaning the fixation of the Chitta in the God or Nirvikalpa Samadhi in the God. This is primarily achieved in Yoga by control of the Pranas through the Pranayama and the other 6 limbs i.e the prana nirodha leads to chitta nirodha. In Bhakti, the opposite happens- chitta nirodha in the God leads to prana nirodha. But, final result of both- Yoga and Bhakti is the same- Nirvikalpa Samadhi in the God. Similarly there is a pure Jnana path which can also lead to enlightenent without exhibiting any Siddhis- for- example King Janaka Videhi who is considered to be a Guru of Shukadevaji.

My interpretation of the Siddhi or the heightened power of the Indriyas and Anthakarana is that the Tapasya or daman of the Indriyas only can produce heightened or super natural powers of the Indriya. The Siddhis are not necessarily a part of the Jnana path or Bhakti path.

I will give you another example of a true Guru - Jada Bharata- he did not exhibit any Siddhis during his life.

Regards,

 

[Surya Deva]

The way I see the Yoga Sutras is - all or none - either you are a Siddha Yogi (enlightened) or you are not. What you are calling "very high up on the path" does not mean much as it does not translate into enlightenment.

The problem with this all or none approach is how do you know somebody is absoltuely enlightened and not just relatively enlightened? I have not come across a single person in human history that can be said to be absolutely enlightened. Everybody had flaws in their character.
Is Ramana maharishi absolutely enlightened, or just relatively enlightened? Is Aurobindo absolutely enlightened, or just relatively enlightened?

I take your point that having siddhis alone is not the only qualification one should look for when selecting a guru. However, if you only go by just how compassionate, detached and loving they are as the qualification then you may end up with just a nice person, who is saintly, but not enlightened. On the other hand if you look for qualities of siddhis and how compassionate, detached and and loving they are, then you know you are in good hands.

If a guru cannot awaken within you higher states of consciousness than they are not a guru. They maybe a saint or a teacher. They must have those states within themselves, before they can awaken them in you. Also do not expect the guru to be a perfect human being.

 

[Satsangi]

The problem with this all or none approach is how do you know somebody is absoltuely enlightened and not just relatively enlightened? I have not come across a single person in human history that can be said to be absolutely enlightened. Everybody had flaws in their character.
Is Ramana maharishi absolutely enlightened, or just relatively enlightened? Is Aurobindo absolutely enlightened, or just relatively enlightened?

I take your point that having siddhis alone is not the only qualification one should look for when selecting a guru. However, if you only go by just how compassionate, detached and loving they are as the qualification then you may end up with just a nice person, who is saintly, but not enlightened. On the other hand if you look for qualities of siddhis and how compassionate, detached and and loving they are, then you know you are in good hands.

If a guru cannot awaken within you higher states of consciousness than they are not a guru. They maybe a saint or a teacher. They must have those states within themselves, before they can awaken them in you. Also do not expect the guru to be a perfect human being.

Surya Devaji,

I meant to say that there is nothing like "relatively enlightened"- either they are enlightened or not enlightened. The problem occures when you are equating Siddhis with enlightenment. I am not saying you look for a "compassionate, detached and nice" person. I used the words "living like an Atman in the body."

There are 30 characteristics of a true Saint (enlightened) mentioned in Srimad Bhagvatam (11/11/29-33) and it explicitly says to follow such a Guru with full faith to achieve Moksha. NONE of the 30 characteristics include any Siddhis. Further it says that God Himself resides in such a Saint. Such Saints MAY exhibit Siddhis which come from the manifestation of God in them.

I would go a step further and say that the Guru who cannot give you Moksha is not a Guru- this is actually said by Rishabhdevaji in the 5th canto of Srimad Bhagvatam.

Regards,

 

[Surya Deva]

Dear Satsangi,

What I don't understand is how can you be certain somebody is enlightened? Can you give me an example of somebody who you are certain is enlightened? "Living like Atman in the body" is vague for I do not know how one who has realised Atman should live in the body.

 

[Satsangi]

Dear Satsangi,

What I don't understand is how can you be certain somebody is enlightened? Can you give me an example of somebody who you are certain is enlightened? "Living like Atman in the body" is vague for I do not know how one who has realised Atman should live in the body.

Surya Devaji,

The 30 characteristic that I mentioned about in the previous post are the defining criteria and I find them in Puranic figures like Sages Narada, Sanakadika, Shukadevaji, King Janaka Videhi, Jada Bharata to name a few. In more contemporary figures, I find those qualities in Shri Ramana Maharshi, Saint Narsinh Mehta, Mirabai, Shirdi Sai Baba, Gajanandji Maharaj- to name a few.

One who has realized the Atman considers this body just as if it were a piece of cloth that you normally wear. Such people are free of the desires of their Indriyas and free of the inner enemies like Kama, Krodha, moha, matsar, aasha, trushna, jealousy etc- meaning they do not exhibit any of these for their body purpose.

Regards,

 

[chinu]

When does one require guidance?

There are two paths, & two guidances

FIRST: Towards "World", or which explores in outside world, or which gives us the knowledge of outside world, or which even gives us the INFORMATION (not knowledge) of religious or holy books which are kept in outsite world.

SECOND: Towards "Word" or which takes us inside ourself, or which gives us the knowledge of inside ourself or innerworld or "God"

So, Which type of Guidance one or you is/are looking for ?

when one is driven by the mind.

If one or you is/are looking for the GUIDANCE FIRST ?
.....Then it is driven by "Mind"
Because "Mind" want to reach to its sources which are outside.

If one or you is/are looking for the GUIDANCE SECOND ?
.....Then it is driven by "Soul"
Because "Soul" want to reach to its source which is inside.

What is the role of the guru?

There are two types of GURUS

FIRST: SPIRITUAL GURU, Which gives the knowledge & help one to reach on the peak of inner world, mean to say NO-MIND or GOD.

SECOND: WORDLY GURUS, commenly which teaches us the arts of outside world like singing, dancing, engineering, docter etc...

If the disscussion is about Spiritual Guru, Than What is the role of the guru?

Suppose there is 100ft high strait wall and you have been told to reach at the top of that wall without the help of anything, and after trying alot

Suppose you have declared that this work is impossible.

And after some time you see one person is on the top of that WALL,

Now what will happen ?
Now your views for climbing that wall are changed.

Similarly:

This is the role of living spiritual guru
We get the strength for climbing the hard & high wall of spirituality by seeing guru.

Until we are inspired by somebody we cannot reach to the peak of that art weather it is wordly or spiritual.

So, i don't know about anybody i can say that spiritual guru is must to learn the art of spirituality.

to guide one to reach the state of no-mind.

Otherwise which "Soul" does not want to reach to the state of NO-MIND,

But very sad to say that they are driven by "Mind"

Having reached the state of no-mind is the guru necessary?

Having reached the state of NO-MIND means, There is no more "World", no more NET, no more INTERNET, no more FORUMS, no more DISCUSSIONS, no more CHATTING, no more COMMENTS.

ONLY "GOD" or its "Word"

Not as such as then there is neither any guru or disciple; both are part of existence.

Both GURU & DISCIPLE are now ONE with "God" and its "Word".

The discussion is open for any doubts in anyone's mind that a physical guru is a must!

"Mind" means "doubts for God"

Love & rgds

By your brother Chinu also.
_/\_

 

[zenzero]

Friend Chinu,

Thank you for your response!

Love & rgds

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

It depends how convincing the display is. If somebody levitated in the air right in front of me several feet into the air or teleported in front of me, I will be sure enough convinced.

Even then you should not assume it true. How many magicians can do all types of impossible things.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

There are many saintly people who live in an unattached manner, who do not desire wealth and can live like that all their life. Such as saints like Mother Theressa. It does not mean that they are enlightened though - they are just nice people. The motives for being nice is often a religious belief.

I would say by this definition of saint. Codependent Anonymous is full of Holy Men.

I would guess that mother Theressa was not a saint. By her own accounts she was stuck in what the Catholics call the dark night of the soul.

Highly developed souls are not always nice. They are marked by their higher mental powers, but they have ego issues like all of us and experience emotions, and may not use those higher mental powers for good purposes always. I really am struggling with this assumption that highly developed souls must behave in a very particular way like being pious, compassionate, loving and living in poverty.

I never said these things are one size fits all for every sage.

For me it all comes down to what is what you want out of life. If you want to transcend the ego. Getting powers will not do it, A pure mind and being full of love will lead to the death of the un-ripe ego.

Hitler had a lot of Shakti. Who would want to be around him.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

If by guru we refer to a guide to some mystical understanding of reality or how to live, then, "NO!" No such guide is needed. Any claiming such "enlightenment" can only succeed in misguiding any they might vainly consider themselves worthy of guiding.
What can we do but live and try to gain reasonable understanding of ourselves and the reality context we find ourselves in. Mystery surely does exist and is wonderous, but any mystical interpretation is misguided and is a form of denial of reality.
Love. Interact. Relate. Empathize. Experience. Feel and embrace these and whatever else you can in your time - anything and everything from pain, frustration, disappointment, confusion... to, yes... even confronting your misunderstandings and maybe even the experience of changing your mind or admitting to being mislead.
Life: Live it as neither good nor bad nor right nor wrong nor understood nor incomprehensible... Just live it and appreciate the wonder. But!!! Don't be mislead by confusing the wonder with what some would peddle as mysticism accessible through what they might claim as profound mystical knowledge.
Life and consciousness and our very being are the great mysteries, and yet they are also so very basically simple. My dog, doG, understands life in simple terms. I doubt if anyone can really do better. I've learned much from hanging with doG. Scratch if you have an itch. Eat if you're hungry. Wag your tail if you feel good. Don't bite. Play nice.
>>> Mystic reality is a crock.
>>>> Mysterious reality is wonderous.
-one old guy's opinion
0zy

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

If by guru we refer to a guide to some mystical understanding of reality or how to live, then, "NO!" No such guide is needed. Any claiming such "enlightenment" can only succeed in misguiding any they might vainly consider themselves worthy of guiding.
What can we do but live and try to gain reasonable understanding of ourselves and the reality context we find ourselves in. Mystery surely does exist and is wonderous, but any mystical interpretation is misguided and is a form of denial of reality.
Love. Interact. Relate. Empathize. Experience. Feel and embrace these and whatever else you can in your time - anything and everything from pain, frustration, disappointment, confusion... to, yes... even confronting your misunderstandings and maybe even the experience of changing your mind or admitting to being mislead.
Life: Live it as neither good nor bad nor right nor wrong nor understood nor incomprehensible... Just live it and appreciate the wonder. But!!! Don't be mislead by confusing the wonder with what some would peddle as mysticism accessible through what they might claim as profound mystical knowledge.
Life and consciousness and our very being are the great mysteries, and yet they are also so very basically simple. My dog, doG, understands life in simple terms. I doubt if anyone can really do better. I've learned much from hanging with doG. Scratch if you have an itch. Eat if you're hungry. Wag your tail if you feel good. Don't bite. Play nice.
>>> Mystic reality is a crock.
>>>> Mysterious reality is wonderous.
-one old guy's opinion
0zy

There is a large body of scientific evidence that spiritual practices have a huge effect on the brain. You have no idea what you are talking about. For many of us the Guru disciple relationship is the closest relationship in our lives. My Guru has never asked me for anything. SHE has only given me love. She has by example shown me how to be a better man, dad, and citizen of the world. I true Ideal of spiritual life in Hinduism is not mystical experience, They are just sign posts on the path. It is how to be a full human being with love in our hearts. It is how to transcend the suffering of our personal neurosis.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Patanjali describes much more than just 8 siddhis.

It is clear what Patanjali's main teaching is in the Yoga Sutras is Union. This is the highest goal.

They are powers of a worldly state, but they are obstacles to samadhi. Yoga Sutras III.38

Life is what you want it to be. Believe in what you want, it makes no difference.
Have fun do what you want. Still for me I don't want to waist my time on some power.

The lord Buddha said if you have one siddhi you are not a true disciple.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

To share;
What is enlightenment??

enlightened - having knowledge and spiritual insight
enlightened - initiate: people who have been introduced to the mysteries of some field or activity; "it is very familiar to the initiate"
enlightened - educated: characterized by full comprehension of the problem involved; "an educated guess"; "an enlightened electorate"

Here we can understand that basically it is to have knowledge and spiritual insight as per the definition. Kindly understand this is before the search or enquiry begins. Once more understand closely that though one is not a separate entity his minds makes him feel separate and so one starts to enquire and on gaining the knowledge the individual has the insight and so is enlightened that he was never separate.
For this is there any *siddhis* required??
any guidance/guru required??
It is already HERE-NOW!
just still the mind that has misguided and the connection of oneness is there right where you are. One need not travel to holy places for it for all places not only on this planet earth but throughout the universe are all the same energy which we are made off except the forms differ. Find many try and find auspicious times for a certain act. Where did the concept of time come from? From human mind or else existence is timeless and every moment is of that essence whatever label is attributed to IT which for a practical and universal understanding take it as the *WHOLE*.
The mind is the root of the individuals connectivity with that whole and so if at all any effort is required by the individual it is to simply still the mind and all the paths discussed in the vedas or through all dharmic or abrahamic or non-revealed paths are all paths to still the mind which enables one to discover that the individual IS always not only connected but is a part of that whole!

Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

Even then you should not assume it true. How many magicians can do all types of impossible things.

None

 

[Surya Deva]

It is clear what Patanjali's main teaching is in the Yoga Sutras is Union. This is the highest goal.

They are powers of a worldly state, but they are obstacles to samadhi. Yoga Sutras III.38

In my opinion you are taking this sutra out of context. Siddhis are only obstacles if you become attached to them. Just as everything else is an obstacle if you become attached to it. Having siddhis itself is not a problem. In fact you will get them, even if you don't want to, when you reach a cetain point of concentration power.

Again if Patanjali was against siddhis he would not have spent an entire chapter talking about the various siddhis that develop. The reason he had this chapter because he knows all yogis will eventually develop siddhis, and he is giving them instructions on what will develop. He is also warning them of not to get too attached to them.

The lord Buddha said if you have one siddhi you are not a true disciple.

Ironically, Buddha had siddhis himself