Why Does a Guru need a Shishya/Shishye?
Some time ago there was an extremely interesting discussion on why a guru would seek out students. Why, if he was already enlightened (if he was that is) care about others or students on the Heathen in his Blindness Yahoo discussion group. For those of you who don't know, this is the title of a book by S N Balangandhara and the Yahoo group discusses it. There were tons of interesting speculations, all of which I have been able to catch up with now, thanks to my efficient internet connection here in Lyon, France. I have been reading Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi and here are a few things I have culled out as a follow-up to the discussions on the Yahoo group.
In our discussion we had asked, is the guru necessarily an enlightened person and what and how does he teach? Ramana in his Talks suggests that enlightenment can be known intellectually. Perhaps the guru is indeed someone who knows enlightenment intellectually. Ramana in his talks advises a devotee to know the 'Self' intellectually first, if ever, and then proceed to knowing it experientially.
To put it in the vocabulary that S N Balagangadhara provides us with, in his works--the guru would know very well the 'configuration of learning', the path and loop it sets, the errors, the salient diversities identified by a configuration of learning or culture and the reasons behind its identification as such.
The guru would know very well the constructed/made nature of the tradition, its purpose and nature as well as the nature of the world and men/women within it, i.e., those parts of the world that can be seen as constructed/altered and those that are facts as far as humans are concerned.
Ramana also suggests, see the quote below, that from the perspective of the guru, it is the Self that teaches, i.e., the Self within the student him/herself. "Because of the false identification of the Self with the body the Guru is considered to be with body. But from the Guru’s outlook the Guru is only the Self. The Self is one only. He tells that the Self alone is. Is not then the Self your Guru? Where else will Grace come from? It is from the Self alone." (p 139).
Vrinda Dalmiya however has different view. In her essay, "Why should the Knower Care?", she concludes that enlightenment itself is such a way of being that the knower cares. (i.e., enlightenment brings compassion). In fact, for her, caring is knowing and vice versa. Quoting from 'bhakti' literature, she understands enlightenment as involving an accommodation of the subject positions of 'others'. She thus simultaneously suggests that this upholds social responsibility and ethical behavior. The ethical domain for her is something that is upheld in the Indian traditions, and at least in Bhakti.
However, this understanding does not help us in solving the problem that statements of the following kind present: a thief/prostitute/'sinner' can achieve enlightenment too. Not only does this statement emphasize that all are privy to enlightenment, but that no matter what you do in the social domain, you can still achieve enlightenment. Or take into account how certain deities are morally un-exemplary. It seems that the kind of knowledge that enlightenment is, it does not necessarily ensure social responsibility or caring of any kind. We also know of the story of the sinner and sage...where the sage is sent to naraka and the sinner to swarga, because the sinner performed his actions while thinking about 'God' /without attachment to his actions, while the sage does it the other way round.
This complicates for us not only the ethical domain and its nature but also that of its relationship to the epistemic, if any. More on this in other posts...
In our discussion we had asked, is the guru necessarily an enlightened person and what and how does he teach? Ramana in his Talks suggests that enlightenment can be known intellectually. Perhaps the guru is indeed someone who knows enlightenment intellectually. Ramana in his talks advises a devotee to know the 'Self' intellectually first, if ever, and then proceed to knowing it experientially.
To put it in the vocabulary that S N Balagangadhara provides us with, in his works--the guru would know very well the 'configuration of learning', the path and loop it sets, the errors, the salient diversities identified by a configuration of learning or culture and the reasons behind its identification as such.
The guru would know very well the constructed/made nature of the tradition, its purpose and nature as well as the nature of the world and men/women within it, i.e., those parts of the world that can be seen as constructed/altered and those that are facts as far as humans are concerned.
Ramana also suggests, see the quote below, that from the perspective of the guru, it is the Self that teaches, i.e., the Self within the student him/herself. "Because of the false identification of the Self with the body the Guru is considered to be with body. But from the Guru’s outlook the Guru is only the Self. The Self is one only. He tells that the Self alone is. Is not then the Self your Guru? Where else will Grace come from? It is from the Self alone." (p 139).
Vrinda Dalmiya however has different view. In her essay, "Why should the Knower Care?", she concludes that enlightenment itself is such a way of being that the knower cares. (i.e., enlightenment brings compassion). In fact, for her, caring is knowing and vice versa. Quoting from 'bhakti' literature, she understands enlightenment as involving an accommodation of the subject positions of 'others'. She thus simultaneously suggests that this upholds social responsibility and ethical behavior. The ethical domain for her is something that is upheld in the Indian traditions, and at least in Bhakti.
However, this understanding does not help us in solving the problem that statements of the following kind present: a thief/prostitute/'sinner' can achieve enlightenment too. Not only does this statement emphasize that all are privy to enlightenment, but that no matter what you do in the social domain, you can still achieve enlightenment. Or take into account how certain deities are morally un-exemplary. It seems that the kind of knowledge that enlightenment is, it does not necessarily ensure social responsibility or caring of any kind. We also know of the story of the sinner and sage...where the sage is sent to naraka and the sinner to swarga, because the sinner performed his actions while thinking about 'God' /without attachment to his actions, while the sage does it the other way round.
This complicates for us not only the ethical domain and its nature but also that of its relationship to the epistemic, if any. More on this in other posts...
Comments