Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: riacs!rutgers!ttidca.tti.com!jamess@decwrl.dec.com (Jim Schoonover)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: The Nature and Function of a Guru
Message-ID: <1991Jun6.171936.20522@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 6 Jun 91 17:19:36 GMT
References: <1991Jun3.160417.8006@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica
Lines: 88
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <1991Jun3.160417.8006@nas.nasa.gov> cyee@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Chut Ngeow YEE) writes:
>
>[...]  Indeed if Nirvana is no different
>from Samsara and if a blade of grass, a stone a river etc is nothing but
>Buddha-nature then all the notions of suffering and sickness and
>non-enlightenment is nothing but dreams and illusions.

This may well be, but only when phenomenality is viewed from the
Enlightened perspective.  So long as there is identification with the
dream, or with the dreamed character that seems to be us, then samsara
is decidedly NOT the same as Nirvana.  In that case, samsara is bondage.

There is a marvelous essay in the book "Nirvanasara," titled "Nirvana
and Samsara Are Not the Same," wherein Master Da makes the point that
in the un-Enlightened condition Nirvana and samsara are the ultimate
opposites.  The statement that they are the same is a radical expression
(or confession) of the Realized, or seventh stage, point of view.  And
he rails mightily against the tendency to popularize the equation of
Nirvana and samsara, or the equation of atman and Brahman, into mere
ideas which are believed but never Realized.  [Note, I don't mean to
suggest that you are doing that.]

So, it would appear that even the statements of a true Guru can, in a
way, serve to reinforce our suffering.  The analogy of the Guru being
the "sunlight on the pillow" is nice, but still this carries the
implication that we are asleep (might as well say sick) and that we must
wake up.  We then imagine that being Awake is something very desirable
and so go to the Guru hoping that His mere Presence will somehow make
IT happen.

It's probably true that the most effective "method" is Satsang, communion
with (and when possible in the physical presence of) a Spiritual Master,
but this alone just doesn't seem to be sufficient for most individuals.
There is usually also need for study, discipline and practice.  And, of
course, Master Da calls us all to self-transcending practice.

I find it interesting that many who Awaken at first seem to have a notion
that others will be awakened just by spending time in their company.
If I correctly remember what I read in one of his biographies, this was
the case with Krishnamurti. (Let's not quibble over the stature of, or
the exact nature of, his realization.)  I also know of a couple of living
Masters for whom this was the case.

Now, when Franklin Jones wrote "The Knee of Listening," I don't think
he ever imagined that he would end up producing all those books and all
the detailed elaboration of his teaching.  The Realization was so obvious
to him.  Pointing out to people the activity of self-contraction, giving
them the practice of self-enquiry in the form "Avoiding relationship?"
and simply revealing the Enlightened Condition to those who came into
his presence would be all that was needed.  (Oops! I think I may be
beginning to digress.)

Let me just say that it seems to me that the excerpt from "The Gorilla
Sermon" that you quoted may reflect a bit of that "optimism" of the
early days of Master Da's teaching career.  Nevertheless, it is a
wonderful piece, describing as it does the real value of the Guru for
the spiritual seeker, and (I would say) effectively pointing to that
which can only be Realized.  The statements about Understanding made me
think of what Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj often said to those who came to
him: "Understanding is All. Just be."

>About John Chq view that an enlightened being is a pointer to the 'truth'...
>I think this is also one of the core teaching of Khrisnamurti.  But in order to
>point to something then the pointer has to be separated to the object pointed
>to. So do you meant to say that an enlightened being is forever separated from
>truth or Buddha-nature?

This sounds to be a case of becoming entangled by words.  Of course
Enlightenment is not some object to be grasped.  Nor is the Truth.  Nor
is the Guru.  Forget the pointing finger; forget even the "moon" at
which it points.  The words and concepts of any teaching are never the
Truth.  When even the greatest of Realizers opens their mouth to teach,
or to merely express the Realization, they're going to end up telling
lies.  And, if some teacher stresses that he is only a pointer, possibly
in the attempt (usually futile) to prevent his listeners from turning
him into a cultic figure, who can blame him?

>[...] I suggest that a
>Realiser, an Enlightened One is no different from the Truth. (S)He lives the
>Truth in human-bodily form and his(her) 'function' in the world is simply that
>of being the sunshine that awakens us from our dream.

Again, this is a nice idea, and perhaps true--or at least useful to the
seeker who thereby rightly understands the value of Satsang.  Though I
would ask: what makes you think you are the dreamer?

-Jim