Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00484)

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