What is a Guru?

I've seen a fairly wide variety of ideas on this, and am wondering how the Hindus on here differ. Also, by sharing what we do know about it, perhaps the people of other faiths who can read the thread will be cleared of some misconceptions.

In your view, what is a Guru? What does being a Guru entail?

Shantanu said:

A Guru is someone who teaches religion and philosophy. He has to have studied the scriptures that are the basis of his or her teachings. He or she teaches because they are compelled by an inner force to impart wisdom upon humanity in order to take human beings on the road to salvation and ameliorate their suffering brought on by ignorance.

Gurus use different techniques to teach, but most lead by examples so that they are not seen as hypocrits. False gurus are identified by this fact that they do not practice what they preach.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that perspective.

Guru means remover of darkness, that is unconsciousness.

A Guru helps to remove unconsciousness generated by desires in the form of cravings and aversions, and helps to bring the disciple to present moment awareness or pure consciousness.

Buddha removing the unconscious craving for human victims in the serial killer Angulimala and helping him to be established in present moment awareness/mindfulness instead is a good example of what a Guru or master is supposed to do.

There are many great teachers, both today, and throughout history. Some are also scholars, some are great orators. Many wrote books. Some were also Gurus.

By one definition, and teacher is a Guru. Mother, than father, are your first Gurus. But you can have a dance Guru, a music Guru, etc. It's synonymous with teacher, and in this sense can also be a spiritual Guru.

But for me personally, the Guru is really about the Guru-devotee, or Guru-sishya relationship. I'm traditional about it, and here are a few thoughts. Not intended as an end-all, just my personal opinion.

The Guru has to be living. You can't have a personal relationship with a deceased teacher. Sri Ramana or Sri Ramakrishna were great mystics, great teachers, but one can no longer go and sit, and ask a personal question in the here and now. Living Gurus know your name. They find time for personal counsel, like an older brother, a father, and more. Almost by definition, they are NOT mass market. Becoming mass market via promotion would severely hinder the ability to find time for everyone.

Traditionally, Hindu Gurus simple do not promote themselves, or allow others to promote them. Neither are they self-declared. They come into in one of two ways ... being appointed as the head of an existing lineage by the outgoing Guru as the most qualified person to carry on the leadership, or having someone come along and beg 'Teach me'.

They may or may not enter the more public realm by writing books.

Sure there's more. maybe later. But one thing I've learned is that the concept of it, just like everything else in the umbrella called Hinduism, varies a lot from sect to sect, from person to person.

Vinayaka said:

The Guru has to be living. You can't have a personal relationship with a deceased teacher. Sri Ramana or Sri Ramakrishna were great mystics, great teachers, but one can no longer go and sit, and ask a personal question in the here and now. Living Gurus know your name. They find time for personal counsel, like an older brother, a father, and more. Almost by definition, they are NOT mass market. Becoming mass market via promotion would severely hinder the ability to find time for everyone.

Traditionally, Hindu Gurus simple do not promote themselves, or allow others to promote them. Neither are they self-declared. They come into in one of two ways ... being appointed as the head of an existing lineage by the outgoing Guru as the most qualified person to carry on the leadership, or having someone come along and beg 'Teach me'.

They may or may not enter the more public realm by writing books.

Sure there's more. maybe later. But one thing I've learned is that the concept of it, just like everything else in the umbrella called Hinduism, varies a lot from sect to sect, from person to person.

Click to expand...

I prefer dead gurus, whose history is well-known. They are safer. Buddha and Sankra are my gurus. For a living guru, I will have to check all their sayings and their antecedents. They may impress one with their looks, their long shoulder-length hair, flowing beards, their robes and their smiles. I would be wary of a smiling guru. What are they leering at? At my foolishness, my vulnerability? That how easily he/she can fool me?



Some gurus already convicted for their crimes:

Mssrs. Rampal, Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Asaram, Premananda

Please note, that this post is not personally directly at yourself, Vinayaka; but I am talking about general public. Why should anyone need personal relationships? What the gurus stand for is already evident in their books. Why should anyone have anymore doubts?

Yeah, ManSinha, like Baba Nanak or Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji.

My idea of a Guru - total and complete - a role model in every way - and he still will answer the seeker's questions if asked -

Vinayaka said:

In your view, what is a Guru?

Click to expand...

A Guru is a spiritual teacher who:
* can make you humble
* can grant you a glimpse of the divine

Teacher -- not necessarily religious, but that's become the common understanding.

Aupmanyav said:

I prefer dead gurus, whose history is well-known.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Lots of people do. You don't feel obliged to listen to them, as they won't speak to you personally. Many were great teachers, and left wonderful legacies.

For living teachers, it is indeed buyer beware.

I think of a guru as a teacher or spiritual adviser/guide for the person or family. In the same way a person or a family would have a close relationship with a lawyer or a doctor, the same relationship would exist with the guru in spiritual and religious matters. That's how it would work for me.

In Ananda Marga the Guru was in a living body until 1990. The Guru was the same personality as the Ista Deva and preceptor of Ananda Marga.
The Guru told on several occasions that He was not only his personality or body and that He could not be with them in that way for always.
He also taught that only God (the Supreme Consciousness of Highest Self) was the real Guru and that He was teaching through different organisations besides AMPS (in the philosophy everyone is seen as moving along the path of anandam/bliss and everyone has a relationship with that Supreme Consciousness).
I had the chance to have darshan with Him on a number of occasions and even personal contact (in Chennai and Calcutta).

But for advice on personal matters and for learning the spiritual lessons there were the acharyas because the Guru had delegated these functions at a certain point in the development of the organisation long before I joined. The acharyas are not seen as gurus, the Guru remains the same for his followers internally and His teachings have been recorded and still reflect His personality. He also told that He had merged Himself with His organisation. So I'm not sure how that compares to the idea of guru in other organisations as I haven't done much studying in that direction.

Marcion said:

The Guru told on several occasions that He was not only his personality or body and that He could not be with them in that way for always.
He also taught that only God (the Supreme Consciousness of Highest Self) was the real Guru and that He was teaching through different organisations besides AMPS (in the philosophy everyone is seen as moving along the path of anandam/bliss).
I had the chance to have darshan with Him on a number of occasions and even personal contact (in Chennai).

But for advice on personal matters and for learning the spiritual lessons there were the acharyas because the Guru had delegated these functions at a certain point in the development of the organisation long before I joined. The acharyas are not seen as gurus, the Guru remains the same for his followers internally and His teachings have been recorded and still reflect His personality. So I'm not sure how that compares to the idea of guru in other organisations.

Click to expand...

@Marcion
At the risk of creating a tangent - and I believe this is where the rivers start to flow into the ocean - compare what you just wrote above with the life of the 10th Master - whose likeness I put in my post above - the similarities are eerie to coin a phrase - as I was reading your post I was reminded of the various sayings and examples of Guru Gobind Singh -

It would appear that one of the answers to @Vinayaka's question is taking shape.

Marcion said:

In Ananda Marga the Guru was in a living body until 1990. The Guru was the same personality as the Ista Deva and preceptor of Ananda Marga.
The Guru told on several occasions that He was not only his personality or body and that He could not be with them in that way for always.
He also taught that only God (the Supreme Consciousness of Highest Self) was the real Guru and that He was teaching through different organisations besides AMPS (in the philosophy everyone is seen as moving along the path of anandam/bliss and everyone has a relationship with that Supreme Consciousness).
I had the chance to have darshan with Him on a number of occasions and even personal contact (in Chennai and Calcutta).

But for advice on personal matters and for learning the spiritual lessons there were the acharyas because the Guru had delegated these functions at a certain point in the development of the organisation long before I joined. The acharyas are not seen as gurus, the Guru remains the same for his followers internally and His teachings have been recorded and still reflect His personality. He also told that He had merged Himself with His organisation. So I'm not sure how that compares to the idea of guru in other organisations as I haven't done much studying in that direction.

Click to expand...

It's close. My Guru did designate some of his monks for certain duties, but when He passed, He also passed the torch, so there is a new Guru. Often that can avoid any conflict, if he makes it clear. I've seen quite a few organisations have fights for power when the Guru doesn't appoint a successor. Not always, as in Sikhism.

Vinayaka said:

It's close. My Guru did designate some of his monks for certain duties, but when He passed, He also passed the torch, so there is a new Guru. Often that can avoid any conflict, if he makes it clear. I've seen quite a few organisations have fights for power when the Guru doesn't appoint a successor. Not always, as in Sikhism.

Click to expand...

No-one would accept such a type of successor in AMPS just like there were no successors to Shiva and Krishna as Guru's (although some people started to worship some of their wives). The Guru as leader of the organisation gave strict rules as to how to choose a successor (he/she is not seen as the Guru though), but if those rules are not followed strictly enough such organisational splits seem to be inevitable. I personally don't understand such greed for power and control.

ManSinha said:

@Marcion
At the risk of creating a tangent - and I believe this is where the rivers start to flow into the ocean - compare what you just wrote above with the life of the 10th Master - whose likeness I put in my post above - the similarities are eerie to coin a phrase - as I was reading your post I was reminded of the various sayings and examples of Guru Gobind Singh -

It would appear that one of the answers to @Vinayaka's question is taking shape.

Click to expand...

Sikhism seems to also be a Hindu reform movement like AMPS and some of the streamlining indeed follows similar lines (Bhakti and Tantra in both movements).
I once got the chance to help carry the Guru Granth Sahib to his sleeping quarters in the Golden Temple in Amritsar (1979) on a very heavy stretcher, I felt very welcomed by the community there.

Marcion, do not forget that you are not a Hindu. You are entitled only to ask respectful questions about Hinduism if you have any. Hindus will reply. Kindly do not give lessons to us. I refer to your post 15.

Vinayaka said:

I've seen a fairly wide variety of ideas on this, and am wondering how the Hindus on here differ. Also, by sharing what we do know about it, perhaps the people of other faiths who can read the thread will be cleared of some misconceptions.

In your view, what is a Guru? What does being a Guru entail?

Click to expand...

As I understand, there is heaven and hell chasm between teacher and Guru, which means "one who destroys/dispels darkness". 'Gu' is darkness and 'ru' is destroyer.

Ultimately, it is said that Guru, Self and God are one and the same.

Guru is the Self. When existence becomes unbearable for the ego, Self manifests as God, as Guru, as Saguna -- to push the ego in. Guru is friend, lover, Lord, a close confidante. One can carry Guru on one's shoulder and carry on a private talk. The normal people will mark such behaviour as of a mad man but it is that only. Guru only can teach that this world is mad and fake.

Shiva is Guru, Shiva is Lord, Shiva is existence. Shiva is the Self.

Aupmanyav said:

Marcion, do not forget that you are not a Hindu. You are entitled only to ask respectful questions about Hinduism if you have any. Hindus will reply. Kindly do not give lessons to us. I refer to your post 15.

Click to expand...

I was not speaking about Hinduism, let alone "teaching lessons". I am giving my understanding of the concept of guru just like Mansinha was commenting from the Sikh side and you from the Atheist side. Please do not fan fundamentalist sentiments on this forum, it creates a nasty atmosphere.
Ananda Marga was declared a part of Hinduism by the Supreme Court of India and AM was not given a special section on this forum, whether you or I like or dislike that is irrelevant.

Kindly refer to your post # 15. And you do not mention Hinduism as your religion. Furthermore, you are linking a Christian site in your post above. With all that I can only surmise that you are an imposter. Perhaps Atanu is impressed by you, I am not. Follow the rules of the forum.

Marcion said:

No-one would accept such a type of successor in AMPS just like there were no successors to Shiva and Krishna as Guru's (although some people started to worship some of their wives). The Guru as leader of the organisation gave strict rules as to how to choose a successor (he/she is not seen as the Guru though), but if those rules are not followed strictly enough such organisational splits seem to be inevitable. I personally don't understand such greed for power and control.

Click to expand...

The Guru just has to make a definitive successor appointment before he passes, and early on before he passes. That's also how all the Sankaracharya Mutts work, as far as I know. So too with BAPS, and most likely many others. It also keeps it from becoming solely a Guru based organisation. Some organisations have fallen apart completely with the death of the Guru.