Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00485)

Aryel may also read my article on Krishnamurti at this url.
http://www.anandgholap.net/Failure_Of_J_Krishnamurti.htm

Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Aryel,
> > Please consider that when the Buddha himself was in his deathbed &  
> > surrounded by thousands of monks & lay people, he was asked to give  
> > them his final words.  They wished for him to summarize briefly the  
> > essence of what he'd been saying for decades.  The historic
statement  
> > that he made was (this is from memory, so consider it a paraphrase):
> > 
> > "Seek out your own salvation, with diligence.  Buddhas do but point  
> > the way."
> > 
> > In other words, the function of the best possible teacher is "to  
> > point."  Then, after that teacher "points," it's 100% up to you what  
> > will happen.  If you decide to "continue messing up," the teacher
has  
> > nothing to do with that.  It's your life, not his.
> Here statement "Buddha do but point the way." needs elaboration which
> we don't have here. Conclusion Aryel is drawing is Buddhas only teach
> pupil theorotically, i.e. verbally. But the above statement does not
> necessarily mean that this pointing the way is merely verbal. 
> As I understand Krishnamurti's teachings, K does not approve even a
> Guru who "but points the way" K was against all Gurus. 
> 
> 
> > Intriguingly, this is precisely what K said all along is the
function  
> > of a teacher.  If you are truly interested in seeing what he
actually  
> > said (as opposed to accepting rumor & innuendo from people who have  
> > not taken the trouble to find out for themselves), a good place to  
> > look into is the discussion on the subject of gurus that he had with  
> > Swami Venkatesananda on July 25, 1969, & which can be found in The  
> > Awakening of Intelligence, beginning on page 139.  Here is part of  
> > what he actually said:
> > 
> > "Sir, if you are using the word guru in the classical sense, which
is  
> > the dispeller of darkness, of ignorance, can another, whatever he
be,  
> > enlightened or stupid, really help to dispel this darkness in  
> > oneself?  Suppose 'A' is ignorant and you are his guru --- guru in  
> > the accepted sense, one who dispels darkness and one who carries the  
> > burden for another, one who points out --- can such a guru help  
> > another? --- not theoretically but actually.  Can you, if you are
the  
> > guru of so and so, dispel his darkness, dispel the darkness for  
> > another?  Knowing that he is unhappy, confused, has not enough brain  
> > matter, has not enough love, or sorrow, can you dispel that?  Or has  
> > he to work tremendously on himself?  You may point out, you may say,  
> > 'Look, go through that door,' but he has to do the work entirely
from  
> > the beginning to the end.  Therefore, you are not a guru in the  
> > accepted sense of that word, if you say that another cannot help...   
> > But I have to walk [through] there.  Sir, you are the guru and you  
> > point out the door.  You have finished your job."
> 
> I think Krishnamurti's ideas about Guru are wrong. I say
> Krishnamurti's ideas of Guru are wrong because in India and elsewhere
> there are so many witnesses that prove that Guru is not  just a person
> who teaches pupil verbally. 
> Blavatsky had called Dyaneshwari king of all mystic works. If you read
> Dyaneshwari, you will find that St. Dyaneshwar gives so much credit to
> his Guru. Blavatsky herself gives so much credit to Guru. Blavatsky's
> position was without Masters she could not have done what she did. 
> Krishnamurti's speeches did tremendous damage to concept of Guru, the
> fear for which Subba Rao was unwilling to give much knowledge about
> Masters to the world. Subba Rao thought that ordinary people will
> laugh at Masters and so he advised Blavatsky to not to write much
> about Masters. Fear of Subba Rao came true because Krishnamurti
> himself attacked Gurus  (Masters) and made people laugh about Masters!
> I can give many references from Indian spiritual writing which prove
> that Guru or Master is not the person who merely teaches
> intellectually. Spiritual Master effects changes in disciple at
> spiritual level. 
> You will find that Sri Krishna effected that change in Arjuna. St.
> Dyaneshwar's Guru effected that change in St. Dyaneshwar. There are so
> many witnesses telling that Guru is not just a teacher who teaches
> verbally, but Guru is one who brings about change at spiritual level
> in disciple. 
> So Krishnamurti's talks on Guru are highly misleading. 
> Not just in India, but even in the west you will get thousands of
> testimonies about how Jesus transformed lives of ordinary people. 
> In short Krishnamurti has done much damage to idea of holy Masters.
> Later I will tell how same idea of Guru exists in Buddhism, which I
> learned from a lama who is international speaker on Buddhism.
> 
> Anand Gholap
>