Skepticism about Gurus

[sayak83]

I think something people often forget about when we talk about non attachment is that at a certain point our dependency on teachers is an attachment. Teachers can be helpful but we should not become overly dependent on them in my opinion. Take what they say and examine it, examine what other teachers say as well. Who knows, sometimes something that doesn't make sense from one teacher makes perfect sense when another one presents it to you.

I am a teacher myself (in a college). The last thing I want is for my students to become dependent on me for solving the problems they face in professional and personal life. The greatest honor a teacher can have is for a student to demonstrate independent mastery in that area and exceed me in their abilities, understandings, skills and discoveries as they go on in their lives. I do not see why it would be different in spiritual matters.

 

[Martin]

But that is like a student who never graduates or a child who remains always dependent on his parents even after growing up. After several tries, should not the guru just say " Look you are not progressing. Maybe this teaching cannot help you further. Maybe some other teacher or guru can help you further. Start looking elsewhere." Cultivating or even allowing dependency is simply not a path that can lead to enlightenment or moksha whatever you may call it. Its just another dependency.

I agree that's what gurus should say, though they are not perfect. I've come across teachers who appear to enjoy being the centre of attention, or an object of devotion.

 

[sayak83]

I agree with you about both of these thing and would like to state that the point of my OP here is less about good and bad gurus and more about not becoming overly dependent on any one teacher.
We should not assume someone is bad or has bad intentions if something they have done doesn't help us for instance. I have had numerous occasions where people were giving me advice and their intentions were good but because they didn't know what they were talking about, were divorced from the situation , had completely different end goals to me etc I found their advice not helpful or even harmful.

I like to depend on God and my own understanding to the best of my ability. If something doesn't make sense I research it. For me dependence on a Guru has been more of a hindrance than a help.

Edit: I also agree with you that this might partly be a cultural thing. The way I view gurus and teachers is partially dependent on my own culture and studies. Being from where I am in the world with the kind of history I have had gives me reasons to be skeptical that someone in a different set of circumstances just wouldn't have.

One should also be careful in becoming dependent on God(s) as that God is also often an image generated by the ego-self in another guise.
Of course desire for complete independence itself can transform into egoistic arrogance and aloofness and bind the self.
So its difficult. Discernment is required. So at least some initial guidance from a reliable source would be good.

 

[sayak83]

Its actually not very complicated. It looks complicated only on paper. Bit like instructions for cooking or driving. The manual looks immensely complicated but it becomes easy once you have cooked or driven at least once under a guide.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

I think the important point is finding out for yourself that a particular method leads to "benefit and happiness", rather than going on somebody elses say-so. Though this does require an initial trust or confidence that the method is worth pursuing.

I think developing our own discernment is the most important thing. You are correct in that you need to have faith that something is worth pursuing. Over my 13 , now nearly 14 years of exploring different paths and my own ups and downs I found certain things which I believe are worth pursuing and things which I do not think are worth pursuing. It takes time to decide if certain methods are worth the effort and it can be difficult.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

One should also be careful in becoming dependent on God(s) as that God is also often an image generated by the ego-self in another guise.
Of course desire for complete independence itself can transform into egoistic arrogance and aloofness and bind the self.
So its difficult. Discernment is required. So at least some initial guidance from a reliable source would be good.

This is a good point. Ultimately it is all a balancing act and it is easy to misstep. Although I find performing certain rituals and keeping certain images of God in mind I am aware that we should not become overly dependent on those either. Discernment takes time to develop but if you can develop it you will find a lot of this come more naturally I think.

 

[sayak83]

I agree that's what gurus should say, though they are not perfect. I've come across teachers who appear to enjoy being the centre of attention, or an object of devotion.

I have come across this as well. That is where I feel uncomfortable.

 

[Martin]

I think developing our own discernment is the most important thing. You are correct in that you need to have faith that something is worth pursuing. Over my 13 , now nearly 14 years of exploring different paths and my own ups and downs I found certain things which I believe are worth pursuing and things which I do not think are worth pursuing. It takes time to decide if certain methods are worth the effort and it can be difficult.

Yes, and I've found it can take quite a while (or several attempts) to properly explore a particular tradition or method. It's a fascinating process, though at times it can be frustrating. I sometimes envy people who settle on one thing, and stick with it.

 

[stvdv]

A guru is supposed to be a teacher. So, fundamentally, a good Guru is one who is teaching you the knowledge/skills/practice till you have the basics right and let you become an independent practitioner after that time (just like any teaching or internship). A bad guru would instead try to get you to become dependent on him/her or his/her organization on a perpetual 24-7 basis. That is the fundamental difference.

That is how I see it too

Maybe we should also talk about good and bad students. Presumably a "bad" (immature) student would want/need to be dependent on a guru, rather than taking responsibility for their own development.

I don't think so

A good Guru knows how to transform each student

Though I have read, that "Spiritual Arrogance" is kind of incurable within 1 lifetime. The good part about being able to accept a Guru is, that you humble yourself, which makes "spiritual arrogance" less likely to happen

So, the student thinking "Guru is never needed" might be the "worst" student

 

[Colt]

Skepticism of Gurus

I am personally rather skeptical of gurus in general. I think that gurus can often have useful insights or have useful personal stories but are over glorified among many religions. In a lot of cases one is expected to hand over their reasoning faculties and just go along with it because gurus and teachers are said to have some sort of deeper connection than you.

While I think teachers can be helpful it seems to me that a much better approach is to examine what teachers say from multiple traditions and to even take what your favorite guru might say with a grain of salt. These people are still ultimately fallible and creatures which come with their own baggage and experiences. These experiences might differ so drastically from yours that anything they say to you either means something entirely different to them or is bound up to be misinterpreted once you come to hear it.

That is before you ever begin to take on the bias that comes with being a human being and living on this earth. Enlightened beings are few and far between and I am unsure if an enlightened being is even clear of all of their previous bias or simply has some greater insight into deep mystical truths.

As I have been exploring Hinduism more recently I have found a wealth of great wisdom. There are plenty of jewels in ancient teachers and their teachings that can help us even today but it also seems like some people are willing to throw away their minds and not question anything an “enlightened” teacher has to say.

In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha says “ 4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.”

What I am saying is that I think having a teacher is great but simply accepting everything they say uncritically is not the way to further our understanding. I think the best course of action even if we have a teacher is to consider multiple sources and to do our own practices of contemplation and meditation to try and get to the bottom of things.

I think more than once we have seen the abuses that can happen when people simply trust their gurus.

All of this being said I am curious as to what you guys think about all of this? How much faith do you put into your teachers?


Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry (accesstoinsight.org) Here is a link to the sutta I quoted btw.

God is within, God is my guru.

 

[Martin]

That is how I see it too


I don't think so

A good Guru knows how to transform each student

Though I have read, that "Spiritual Arrogance" is kind of incurable within 1 lifetime. The good part about being able to accept a Guru is, that you humble yourself, which makes "spiritual arrogance" less likely to happen

So, the student thinking "Guru is never needed" might be the "worst" student

It's a question of balance. A student thinking "a guru is always needed" is probably missing the point as well.
I've also found that some devotees don't think deeply enough about what their guru says.

 

[stvdv]

It's a question of balance. A student thinking "a guru is always needed" is probably missing the point as well.
I've also found that some devotees don't think deeply enough about what their guru says.

For many the Spiritual journey is quite new, hence they make mistakes and need to learn from those mistakes

Once you bumb your knows you will be more careful with the next Guru

 

[firedragon]

Skepticism of Gurus

I am personally rather skeptical of gurus in general. I think that gurus can often have useful insights or have useful personal stories but are over glorified among many religions. In a lot of cases one is expected to hand over their reasoning faculties and just go along with it because gurus and teachers are said to have some sort of deeper connection than you.

While I think teachers can be helpful it seems to me that a much better approach is to examine what teachers say from multiple traditions and to even take what your favorite guru might say with a grain of salt. These people are still ultimately fallible and creatures which come with their own baggage and experiences. These experiences might differ so drastically from yours that anything they say to you either means something entirely different to them or is bound up to be misinterpreted once you come to hear it.

That is before you ever begin to take on the bias that comes with being a human being and living on this earth. Enlightened beings are few and far between and I am unsure if an enlightened being is even clear of all of their previous bias or simply has some greater insight into deep mystical truths.

As I have been exploring Hinduism more recently I have found a wealth of great wisdom. There are plenty of jewels in ancient teachers and their teachings that can help us even today but it also seems like some people are willing to throw away their minds and not question anything an “enlightened” teacher has to say.

In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha says “ 4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.”

What I am saying is that I think having a teacher is great but simply accepting everything they say uncritically is not the way to further our understanding. I think the best course of action even if we have a teacher is to consider multiple sources and to do our own practices of contemplation and meditation to try and get to the bottom of things.

I think more than once we have seen the abuses that can happen when people simply trust their gurus.

All of this being said I am curious as to what you guys think about all of this? How much faith do you put into your teachers?


Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry (accesstoinsight.org) Here is a link to the sutta I quoted btw.

you know this is a good question. An age old question. Are you querying only about Buddhism and/or Hinduism?

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

you know this is a good question. An age old question. Are you querying only about Buddhism and/or Hinduism?

I mean I have been looking into religion for about 14 years now ( I just realized it will be 14 years in the coming 3 months anyway) and I have researched numerous religions as well as practiced several in that time frame. I practiced Islam of various stripes ( focusing on different schools of thought ) for roughly 4 years. After that I did a lot of investigation into Judaism and Christianity as well as various other paths. Buddhism was one of the first paths I felt naturally drawn too and like I naturally agreed with the Buddha on a lot of things. I researched psychology and philosophy in that time and found that early/secular Buddhism was something I could get into without much difficulty.

The issue I had even as I got more into Buddhism was that I felt drawn to devotional practice and found that I wanted a relationship with God / gods. As I started to study Hinduism I found that it fit my natural understanding with the transcendent nature of God but also provided devotional practice that felt natural to me. I would be reluctant to call myself a Hindu even at this stage though because I believe that title includes certain cultural or philosophical baggage with it that I simply don't agree with. Lately I have been engaging in much more devotional practice that is more Hindu in flavor but is not strictly Hindu in it's nature. I vibe with the way the Bhagavad Gita talks about our relationship to God as well as how devotional practice can be a key part of that relationship but even certain parts of the Gita stick out to me as not super easy to agree with.

Edit: Just thought I would include this thought. Even today I still go back and look at this like the Talmud, Christian mysticism, Sufism etc. I think each time I go back to any teaching I am bound to find something else to think about. I recently reread the Alchemy of Happiness by Al Ghazali and found parts of that rather useful. I think our understanding is an ever developing thing and you will never stop finding new things useful if you keep yourself open to knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

I mean I have been looking into religion for about 14 years now ( I just realized it will be 14 years in the coming 3 months anyway) and I have researched numerous religions as well as practiced several in that time frame. I practiced Islam of various stripes ( focusing on different schools of thought ) for roughly 4 years. After that I did a lot of investigation into Judaism and Christianity as well as various other paths. Buddhism was one of the first paths I felt naturally drawn too and like I naturally agreed with the Buddha on a lot of things. I researched psychology and philosophy in that time and found that early/secular Buddhism was something I could get into without much difficulty.

The issue I had even as I got more into Buddhism was that I felt drawn to devotional practice and found that I wanted a relationship with God / gods. As I started to study Hinduism I found that it fit my natural understanding with the transcendent nature of God but also provided devotional practice that felt natural to me. I would be reluctant to call myself a Hindu even at this stage though because I believe that title includes certain cultural or philosophical baggage with it that I simply don't agree with. Lately I have been engaging in much more devotional practice that is more Hindu in flavor but is not strictly Hindu in it's nature. I vibe with the way the Bhagavad Gita talks about our relationship to God as well as how devotional practice can be a key part of that relationship but even certain parts of the Gita stick out to me as not super easy to agree with.

Edit: Just thought I would include this thought. Even today I still go back and look at this like the Talmud, Christian mysticism, Sufism etc. I think each time I go back to any teaching I am bound to find something else to think about. I recently reread the Alchemy of Happiness by Al Ghazali and found parts of that rather useful. I think our understanding is an ever developing thing and you will never stop finding new things useful if you keep yourself open to knowledge.

Great.

In Islam, there are teachers. There are some who have the concept of Thakleedh which means to obey. These people do not question the guru. Its blind following. Then you get the Islamic thought which is the Quranic thought called Akal. Here we dont practice blind following but use our intellect.

Akal is the Qur'anic teaching and there are no guru's who have that level of authority.

 

[RestlessSoul]

God is within, God is my guru.

Whilst I broadly share this outlook, I find counsel with other humans is also useful. It never hurts to get another, human, perspective on any given situation. Besides, I find God often works through other people.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

Great.

In Islam, there are teachers. There are some who have the concept of Thakleedh which means to obey. These people do not question the guru. Its blind following. Then you get the Islamic thought which is the Quranic thought called Akal. Here we dont practice blind following but use our intellect.

Akal is the Qur'anic teaching and there are no guru's who have that level of authority.

I think it makes sense not to really have gurus on the level of authoritative persons. Though I have seen similar elements of guru like devotion among Muslims and one could argue strict adherence to the sunnah might be something similar. I think it's a balancing act one way or another.

 

[firedragon]

I think it makes sense not to really have gurus on the level of authoritative persons. Though I have seen similar elements of guru like devotion among Muslims and one could argue strict adherence to the sunnah might be something similar. I think it's a balancing act one way or another.

The traditional Islamic doctrine according to the school of Medina which is the oldest school of fikh, there is no thakleedh or Guru following. Zilch. Also, Sunnah adherence does not really mean Guru adherence. So in the school of Medina, Sunnah is inherited. It does not have any adherence to a teacher.

Yet, I dont know whether you call a school of thought as Guru worship.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

The traditional Islamic doctrine according to the school of Medina which is the oldest school of fikh, there is no thakleedh or Guru following. Zilch. Also, Sunnah adherence does not really mean Guru adherence. So in the school of Medina, Sunnah is inherited. It does not have any adherence to a teacher.

Yet, I dont know whether you call a school of thought as Guru worship.

It is more about the idea of putting Muhammad and his actions on a pedestal. Yes you do not have a literal teacher or guru but the idea of putting Muhammad's behavior as above the behavior for all other men throughout time and something worthy of duplicating is similar to the idea behind a guru. If you want to say that Muhammad was a great man and worth paying attention to that is one thing but I have known various scholars and schools of thought which propose the idea that replicating Muhammad's behavior is the best course of action for all mankind.

Al-Shafi is said to of said that The Quran needs to be interpreted in light of the Hadith and Sunnah for example. One could make an argument that the reliance on hadith is similar in many ways to adopting a guru. If the Quran is the clear word of God then why do I need an outside source to understand it etc? Though I am arguing here for essence over literal meaning in some sense.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

Yes, and I've found it can take quite a while (or several attempts) to properly explore a particular tradition or method. It's a fascinating process, though at times it can be frustrating. I sometimes envy people who settle on one thing, and stick with it.

For me I was originally going to settle on Islam. I fell in love with certain parts of it and wanted to stick to that but overtime too many questions came up that Islam didn't seem to have a satisfactory answer for. Too many little things bothered me and over time I found that I could not call myself a Muslim as my own beliefs drifted further and further away from that.

Since then I haven't really taken on any titles as I think too much can change and I am always learning new things. If people asked I would of said I was a Buddhist for a bit but attached some caveats to that because it was not simply an adherence to certain philosophies so much as it was a practice. I meditated and used certain kinds of meditation as well as broadly agreeing with core principles of the Buddha's teachings. I did sometimes have to clarify what I meant to people because for instance I never fell into the mahayana or tibetan schools easily. I used sources from the Pali cannon and focused on certain schools of thought. If I talked to other Buddhists though many of them would claim because I did not hold certain beliefs I was not actually a Buddhist etc.

I don't really stick to labels at this point in my life because my own thoughts are my own and no one label has ever truly fit.