Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00311)

April 16th 1998

Dear Bjorn:

Guru-chela relationship

HPB says in her TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE
(I use the ULT Edition -- my quote is between pp 66 - 76)
that the highest principles in every man represent his link with
the Universal Spiritual SELF of all.

In other words the "Guru" is interior to his existing
consciousness. As evidence the Voice of Conscience and Intuition
are advanced. The moral/ethical sense we all have is also cited
as a basis for comparing the decisions we make with an ideal --
if we are truly interested in seeking to live an "ideal" life.

The "personal (embodied mind-self)" is the "chela." The Higher
SELF is the "Guru."

This concept is for ever externalized, as we all acknowledge that
information and ideas are picked up from others: our parents,
teachers, friends, and through experience.

If we take the idea that man is essentially a moral being and
that the fight for recognition of this fact occurs ( as the
BHAGAVAD GITA suggests ) in the mind of each of us -- the "War"
between the Higher and the Lower Self -- then it is a balancing
of decisions between our "needs" and our "wants" as Maslow would
say, that is the growing point of our individual progress -- or
so I would see it.

Dallas

>From: "Bjorn Roxendal" <roxendal@usa.net>
>Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 11:54 AM
>Subject: Re:Krisnamurti and nihilism

>Thoa Tran wrote:
>
>> The pervasive idea was that in order for
>> spiritual growth to occur, you have to have a teacher-chela
relationship.
>
>And the idea of the Guru - chela relationship was clearly
subscribed to by K and
>M, as well as the other adepts behind the TS. When K turned
against the
>guru-chela relationship he turned against his own teachers/gurus
and the plan he
>was a part of.
>
>> I'm sure that due to such an environment, there were
>> probably a lot of abuse of power going on. K was there to
say, stop, think
>> about this, this does not have to be, you can believe in
yourself, you
>> don't have to give your power to somebody else and the power
can be all
>> yours.
>
>You are probably right that K saw misuse of "guru" power, as
well as misuse of
>the discipleship role. Throwing the baby out with the bath water
is not a good
>solution, though.
>
>>
>> A Guru has a much stronger hold. From what I've
>> heard of some Guru-Chela relationship, it requires a total
devotion to the
>> Guru,
>
>I remember reading some interesting passages by K in the Mahatma
letters, about
>the guru-chela relationship. Perhaps I should try to find them.
His statements
>did confirm some of what you say about the "strong" position of
the Guru.
>
>to the point where the Chela will follow the Guru wherever the
Guru
>> goes, and unquestionably follows the advice of the Guru.
Guru-ship has a
>> separation factor. The followers are all in one narrow circle
with the
>> Guru as the center. With that, self-generated experiences and
ideas can
>> occur, whether it is true or not. Following a Guru does not
necessarily
>> help you get rid of your lower ego factor. Guruship also drew
narcissitic
>> people intent on "spiritualizing" themselves.
>>
>> Since my study focus has been on concepts and not history, I'm
not sure
>> about K's relationship to his devotees. I wonder whether he
was waited on
>> hand and foot by devotees as Llhem said.
>
>Maybe Govert or someone else who has been closer to K can
enlighten us?
>
>> I cannot dispute your personal experiences with K's
philosophy. Each
>> person has to find what is best for him/her. If K's
philosophy did not
>> work for you, then it was best to find something else.
>
>I guess we can argue about this forever, only that you are far
too nice for that
>being any fun for me. I actually think K's "therapeutic method"
worked quite
>well for me. But I didn't like the results. The bottom line is
that my
>conclusion is that K is not in the "right" place as far as
consciousness and
>vibration. He is not in sync with the cosmic order, to put it
bluntly.
>
>> For some others,
>> however, it was highly fulfilling, or else he would not have
followers.
>
>There are many pretty strange gurus and leaders who have plenty
of followers,
>all the way to a Hitler and other Black magicians. Many of their
followers would
>say that being such is "highly fulfilling", so that does not
prove too much.
>
>> The self-sufficiency part may be appealing to the lower ego,
but it is also
>> a defensive measure against any claim of power of others over
the self.
>
>Ultimately we make something our God. Following K's teachings,
what would it be?
>
>> >With this I will not argue. You may not have the weaknesses
that K had and may
>> >very well be doing better than he did!
>>
>> You know that HPB was supposed to come back sometime about
now.
>> Well...ahem...;o)
>
>You DEFINITELY seem to lack many of the undesirable traits of
HPB. Try again!
>
>Bjorn
>
theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
consisting of
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>