True principles of Sanatana Dharma

[Shantanu]

:yes:

guru-pādāśraya, dīkṣā, gurura sevana
sad-dharma-śikṣā-pṛcchā, sādhu-mārgānugamana​

"On the path of regulative devotional service, one must observe the following items: (1) One must accept a bona fide spiritual master. (2) One must accept initiation from him. (3) One must serve him. (4) One must receive instructions from the spiritual master and make inquiries in order to learn devotional service. (5) One must follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas and follow the directions given by the spiritual master. [C.C. Madhya 22.115]

One should be extremely careful in selecting his Guru. He should take shelter of a sad-guru, who is self-realized.

Gurus are for those who do not know how to find out about things themselves. I once treated someone as my guru and even started calling him guruji/gurudev because he seemed so knowledgeable and helpful but a time came when I regretted it so much that I stopped calling anyone my guru after that. Partly this was due to the saying that 'once bitten twice shy' but partly I realised that I am and always was my own guru because I have a way of probing and I put a lot of effort into finding out about things. Self-exposure, skepticism of established 'facts' and learing from experience to change oneself on a daily basis to what is true are the key to the development of self-guru, that is a guru who teaches himself/herself.

 

[Jainarayan]

the vast majority of us rely upon a teacher in some form or other , that teacher we call guru ,even if we do not have a guru to teach us face to face, ...

reliance upon a guru is the good grace to admit that it is by the gurus kindness that we aquire any knowledge , and it is by the gurus grace that we learn to put aquired knowledge in to practice :bow:

There was a "guru moment" at temple last night. It was during the Sudarshana Abhishekam. The priest was waiting for flowers, which for some reason were not prepared beforehand, but anyway... while he was waiting for the flowers he took some time to explain the meaning of Sudarshana. It even became a little question and answer period... a teacher/student moment. I thought it was quite nice of him to do this, as he could have simply waited there silently. Btw, this is the young priest I hit it off with the first or second time I went to temple, and who always asks me how I am. He even introduced me to his wife and toddler back then. I wonder if he is the one who will become... you know the rest. He has an extremely heavy Telugu accent, but I think we could work past that (God has a way of getting things done).

 

[Shantanu]

This, I do not agree with. Everyone who has achieved self realization, has followed a particular discipline (chain of disciplic succession), under the shelter of a bonafide guru. Even our scriptures confirm that one cannot achieve spiritual perfection without a Guru.

I have no hope then.
Is there any evidence from the scriptures where the Lord Himself may appear to a devotee to act as his/her guru, Vrindavana Dasji?

 

[Jainarayan]

:yes:

guru-pādāśraya, dīkṣā, gurura sevana
sad-dharma-śikṣā-pṛcchā, sādhu-mārgānugamana​

"On the path of regulative devotional service, one must observe the following items: (1) One must accept a bona fide spiritual master. (2) One must accept initiation from him. (3) One must serve him. (4) One must receive instructions from the spiritual master and make inquiries in order to learn devotional service. (5) One must follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas and follow the directions given by the spiritual master. [C.C. Madhya 22.115]

One should be extremely careful in selecting his Guru. He should take shelter of a sad-guru, who is self-realized.

That doesn't say a farkin' thing about self-realization for the devotee. It says devotional service. And that passage is not scriptural, it's commentary. Moreover, these cut and pastes to try to prove a point are annoying and prove nothing.

Where the Naraka is Shuddhasattva when you need him!?

 

[Jainarayan]

I have no hope then.

You and me bruthuh. When we come back as earthworms, you stay out of my burrow, and I'll stay out of yours. Deal? Deal.

 

[Pleroma]

Is there any evidence from the scriptures where the Lord Himself may appear to a devotee to act as his/her guru, Vrindavana Dasji?

Yes, many of them, Yajnavalkya, Carl Jung etc. They had no human gurus, their gurus where Devas and if you don't trust any human beings or not satisfied with them then you can accept Deities as your guru and you can gain some real wisdom from them.

A guru is someone who can just guide you but it is you who have to practice and experience the truth yourself.

 

[Surya Deva]

The guru-shishya parampara is a premodern institution, which was common in various parts of the world, because in those times there was no internet or mass produced books, the only way to get knowledge was to be formally initiated into a tradition and acquire knowledge from a master. Today, we can freely access the Vedas, Upanishads and Shastras, but in those times access to them was restricted, hence if you wanted to learn them you needed to be part of the tradition. Therefore, there is no real requirement to seek out a guru now days, as the knowledge that one can learn from them is abundantly available to us.

I have done the guru thing in fact, I have been initiated into two major Yogic traditions and was almost formally initiated into an Advaita tradition, which I declined when I personally saw how corrupt the structures of power were in the organization. I similarly rebelled against my first guru, when he started to demand from me attendance of retreats that I had to pay for. When I politely declined several times, he turned hostile on me. In my recent India travels I went looking for a guru across India, and all I found were corrupt, narcissistic, lazy and dogmatic swamis and pandits.

The romantic image I had of the guru has long evaporated. I have decided I am going to do this without a guru. I don't need to rely on any guru.

 

[Shantanu]

The guru-shishya parampara is a premodern institution, which was common in various parts of the world, because in those times there was no internet or mass produced books, the only way to get knowledge was to be formally initiated into a tradition and acquire knowledge from a master. Today, we can freely access the Vedas, Upanishads and Shastras, but in those times access to them was restricted, hence if you wanted to learn them you needed to be part of the tradition. Therefore, there is no real requirement to seek out a guru now days, as the knowledge that one can learn from them is abundantly available to us.

I have done the guru thing in fact, I have been initiated into two major Yogic traditions and was almost formally initiated into an Advaita tradition, which I declined when I personally saw how corrupt the structures of power were in the organization. I similarly rebelled against my first guru, when he started to demand from me attendance of retreats that I had to pay for. When I politely declined several times, he turned hostile on me. In my recent India travels I went looking for a guru across India, and all I found were corrupt, narcissistic, lazy and dogmatic swamis and pandits.

The romantic image I had of the guru has long evaporated. I have decided I am going to do this without a guru. I don't need to rely on any guru.

I once was so impressed with a Indian gentleman from New Delhi who posts by the name of Aupmanyav in Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board, an atheistic Forum, that I started calling him guruji (gurudev even). He was a strong atheist and was very strongly influential in making me a strong atheist. Then I got disillusioned with his conception of Reality and how he passed his time in the forum. I started calling myself an atheotheist and decided never again to adopt another guru even after then converting to theism were I am now. I had to go it alone and find things out for myself even if that meant I might not get to my destination of full realisation within my lifetime.

 

[ratikala]

Gurus are for those who do not know how to find out about things themselves. I once treated someone as my guru and even started calling him guruji/gurudev because he seemed so knowledgeable and helpful but a time came when I regretted it so much that I stopped calling anyone my guru after that. Partly this was due to the saying that 'once bitten twice shy' but partly I realised that I am and always was my own guru because I have a way of probing and I put a lot of effort into finding out about things. Self-exposure, skepticism of established 'facts' and learing from experience to change oneself on a daily basis to what is true are the key to the development of self-guru, that is a guru who teaches himself/herself.

gurus are for the inteligent .

I am sorry to hear of your bad experience but unfortunately you selected incorrectly a guru needs to do more than appear knowledgable they must display an ability to put knowledge in to action .

 

[ratikala]

dear jainarayan ji ,

There was a "guru moment" at temple last night. It was during the Sudarshana Abhishekam. The priest was waiting for flowers, which for some reason were not prepared beforehand, but anyway... while he was waiting for the flowers he took some time to explain the meaning of Sudarshana. It even became a little question and answer period... a teacher/student moment. I thought it was quite nice of him to do this, as he could have simply waited there silently. Btw, this is the young priest I hit it off with the first or second time I went to temple, and who always asks me how I am. He even introduced me to his wife and toddler back then. I wonder if he is the one who will become... you know the rest. He has an extremely heavy Telugu accent, but I think we could work past that (God has a way of getting things done).

please be carefull allthough this young preist may well be knowledgable and thoughtfull , a true guru needs the experience of years , but in time who knows
but allways take the oppertunity to take the associotion of such devotees it will certainly be good for your sadhana

 

[ratikala]

dear jai narayan ji ,

That doesn't say a farkin' thing about self-realization for the devotee. It says devotional service. And that passage is not scriptural, it's commentary. Moreover, these cut and pastes to try to prove a point are annoying and prove nothing.

Where the Naraka is Shuddhasattva when you need him!?

I think there may be a problem here with the understanding and use of "self realisation" and "self realised" ........

prehaps people are assuming self realisation to mean that one has attained realisation by oneself ??? .... which is not what is generaly meant by self realisation .....'self realisation' is the realisation of the true nature of the self , and for such realisation one generaly needs the instruction and gentle guidance of a guru .
and the 'self realised' is one who has realised his true nature in relation to the lord and is therefore fit to assist others on the path of self realisation .

I think you will find that the given text makes perfect sence if one has a correct understanding of self realisation and self realised !

 

[Jainarayan]

I certainly understand. Most of the people I've been associating with have been "guru-like". Guru, after all, means dispelling darkenss. No rush, when the fruit is ripe, it falls.

 

[ratikala]

The guru-shishya parampara is a premodern institution, which was common in various parts of the world, because in those times there was no internet or mass produced books, the only way to get knowledge was to be formally initiated into a tradition and acquire knowledge from a master. Today, we can freely access the Vedas, Upanishads and Shastras, but in those times access to them was restricted, hence if you wanted to learn them you needed to be part of the tradition. Therefore, there is no real requirement to seek out a guru now days, as the knowledge that one can learn from them is abundantly available to us.

I have done the guru thing in fact, I have been initiated into two major Yogic traditions and was almost formally initiated into an Advaita tradition, which I declined when I personally saw how corrupt the structures of power were in the organization. I similarly rebelled against my first guru, when he started to demand from me attendance of retreats that I had to pay for. When I politely declined several times, he turned hostile on me. In my recent India travels I went looking for a guru across India, and all I found were corrupt, narcissistic, lazy and dogmatic swamis and pandits.

The romantic image I had of the guru has long evaporated. I have decided I am going to do this without a guru. I don't need to rely on any guru.

again I am sorry to hear your story but this is why many say that one should only accept a guru from a reputable sampradaya and that one should be carefull to make sure that he is himself a true practitioner .
this is kaliyuga we have to be very carefull , yes there is corruption and self serving , it is rife , but there are still genuine gurus do not give up !

 

[ratikala]

I certainly understand. Most of the people I've been associating with have been "guru-like". Guru, after all, means dispelling darkenss. No rush, when the fruit is ripe, it falls.

guru allso means Heavy !

 

[ratikala]

Yes, many of them, Yajnavalkya, Carl Jung etc. They had no human gurus, their gurus where Devas and if you don't trust any human beings or not satisfied with them then you can accept Deities as your guru and you can gain some real wisdom from them.

if you want to take shelter of any deity that envolves some real surrender !
you want the wisdom , surrender first .
any how who do you think is teaching when you take a guru ???

A guru is someone who can just guide you but it is you who have to practice and experience the truth yourself.

yes you must practice , but it is the gurus wisdom that selects and advises you on that practice >

 

[Surya Deva]

rehaps people are assuming self realisation to mean that one has attained realisation by oneself ??? .... which is not what is generaly meant by self realisation .....'self realisation' is the realisation of the true nature of the self , and for such realisation one generaly needs the instruction and gentle guidance of a guru .

This is simply not true. One can attain self-realization without a guru, and history abounds in examples of people who have. More recently, Ramana Maharishi.

In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which is a Manuel for all yogis seeking self-realization, he does not mention absolutely any need for a guru. As long as one does the kriya yoga, which came to be known as Raja Yoga(the royal Yoga) one will attain self-realization. Thus self-realization depends upon how much effort you put in your practice, and not on whether you have a guru or not.

Again I have a very no-nonsense attitude to spirituality. I understand what spirituality really is, it is the silencing of the activities of your mind which obscure ones consciousness. This can be achieved through meditation, or through purification of the nervous system in Hatha Yoga, and in modern times spiritual experiences can even be induced by stimulating the brain with electric, chemical or magnetic signals. It can also be achieved through any kind of activity which brings a single-minded focus to the mind.

People who do not understand the science behind Yoga take to all these unnecessary austerities like self-mortification, fasting for days, elaborate rituals to gods and goddesses, and slaving after some guru.

 

[Pleroma]

Again I have a very no-nonsense attitude to spirituality. I understand what spirituality really is, it is the silencing of the activities of your mind which obscure ones consciousness. This can be achieved through meditation, or through purification of the nervous system in Hatha Yoga, and in modern times spiritual experiences can even be induced by stimulating the brain with electric, chemical or magnetic signals. It can also be achieved through any kind of activity which brings a single-minded focus to the mind.

People who do not understand the science behind Yoga take to all these unnecessary austerities like self-mortification, fasting for days, elaborate rituals to gods and goddesses, and slaving after some guru.

Yet your science cannot show God. God cannot be studied based on the scientific method. If spiritual experiences are effects of a brain then physicalism will turn out to be right and spirituality is dead.

The Real knowledge of Yoga cannot be studied by science, what you can study through science is the indirect effects of the transactional reality on your physical body. Through Yoga we can reach God which science cannot reach.

What you have is a very narrow view of Vedas and the Upanishads and that's incomplete knowledge. You can never be the master of your world, you're only its slave. It is by knowing God that one becomes the master of this world and not its slave. If you deny the knowledge of the Gods, you're the loser. No one is.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Gurus are for those who do not know how to find out about things themselves. I once treated someone as my guru and even started calling him guruji/gurudev because he seemed so knowledgeable and helpful but a time came when I regretted it so much that I stopped calling anyone my guru after that. Partly this was due to the saying that 'once bitten twice shy' but partly I realised that I am and always was my own guru because I have a way of probing and I put a lot of effort into finding out about things. Self-exposure, skepticism of established 'facts' and learing from experience to change oneself on a daily basis to what is true are the key to the development of self-guru, that is a guru who teaches himself/herself.

I am sorry that you have had a bad experience with someone whom you respected like your Guru.

That is why it is said that one should be extremely careful while selecting a Guru. By Guru, I mean a person who will initiate you into a discipline - an authorized disciplic succession to take you back to Supreme Lord.

Religion is the science of God. Even to learn mundane subjects like Physics and Chemistry, we need a teacher - a Guru. I cannot just read Physics books on my own and hope to become a Physicist one day. Similarly, to learn the science of God, we need to accept the shelter of a Bonafide Guru, who guides and corrects us in the path of the particular discipline chosen by us to realize the Supreme Lord.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yet your science cannot show God. God cannot be studied based on the scientific method.

Nor can the flying Spaghetti monster and Santa clause

If spiritual experiences are effects of a brain then physicalism will turn out to be right and spirituality is dead.

No this conclusion is not at all entailed. All it shows is that the brain and the mind are correlated to one another. It is possible to affect the mind through the brain and affect the brain through the mind. Why this is possible I have already explained to you in the other thread: The mind and the brain are both material substances, only mind is made out of finer matter than the physical brain.

As mind is a material substance, it can be studied like any kind of matter. This is what recent research also bears out. For example in experiments on OBE in order to isolate the subtle body, it has been shown the subtle body can actually be detected by electronic fields. When the subtle body enters into an electronic field it can be detected. Long time OBEs have also reported how during their OBE experiences if they encounter any kind of electric field, it can trap them.

As the matter that makes up the mind is incredibly fine, existing in another dimension higher than physical matter, current means of detection are not powerful enough. However, as soon we can find ways to actually enter into higher dimensions, we will also be able to directly interact with the subtle body and the subtle world.

Science can study all material phenomenon, and as the subtle body, reincarnation, mind, thoughts, intellect and gunas are all material phenomena, science can study them. All of this is what is called aparavidya.

The Real knowledge of Yoga cannot be studied by science, what you can study through science is the indirect effects of the transactional reality on your physical body. Through Yoga we can reach God which science cannot reach.

Yes science cannot study the absolute reality, the noumenon, because science is limited to only the material world. This is what is known as paravidya. In order to know the absolute reality an entirely different method is advocated: self-realization. Only those who are self-realized can know Brahman.

What you have is a very narrow view of Vedas and the Upanishads and that's incomplete knowledge. You can never be the master of your world, you're only its slave. It is by knowing God that one becomes the master of this world and not its slave. If you deny the knowledge of the Gods, you're the loser. No one is.

There is no such thing as gods. The Upanishads do not tell us to know gods, they tell us to know the self. If there is any god, it is the self.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

That doesn't say a farkin' thing about self-realization for the devotee. It says devotional service. And that passage is not scriptural, it's commentary. Moreover, these cut and pastes to try to prove a point are annoying and prove nothing.

Where the Naraka is Shuddhasattva when you need him!?

If you try, it is not so difficult to understand that devotional service is a discipline to achieve Supreme Lord and self-realization.

I have given examples from scriptures earlier. Still, for your benefit, I will repeat:

tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaḿ
jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ​

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth. [B.G. 4.34]

Also, Padma Purana says:

sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste niṣphalā matāḥ|
ataḥ kalau bhaviśyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ||
Śrī-brahmā-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavā kṣitipāvanāḥ|
catvāraste kalau bhāvya hyutkale puruṣottamāt||
rāmānujaṃ śrī svicakre madhvācaryaṃ caturmukhaḥ|
śrīviṣṇusvāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanāḥ||​

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradāyas. Each of them were ignaugurated by Śrī Devī and known as the Śrī Sampradāya, Lord Brahmā and known as the Brahmā Sampradāya,Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradāya; and the Four Kumāras and known as Sanakādi Sampradāya. Śrī Devī made Rāmānujācārya the head of that lineage. So too Lord Brahmā appointed Madhvācārya, Lord Rudra appointed Viṣṇusvāmī and the four Kumaras chose Nimbāditya (an epithet for Śrī Nimbārkācārya).

As for scriptural cut-pastes as being annoying and prove nothing; to me this as a religious forum. So, I speak scriptures and not 'my mind' as scriptures. If you see it as a platform to discuss what you 'feel/think' is Hinduism, without sanction of scriptures, then you can ignore my posts.