--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > In samsara there are two sorts of people - astika (religious) and > > nastika (unbeliever) - in the world of the atheist there isn't any > > guru. > > *Not* to get into debating "What Guru Dev believed > or didn't believe" (because the guy means nothing > to me and I don't give a crap), I should point out > that the above "intro" to this talk makes a pretty > heavy assumption. > > That is, that only those who believe in God can be > spiritual seekers or appreciate a "guru." > > Not true. Buddhists are essentially atheists in that > they have no need to postulate a sentient God of any > kind. That does not mean that they are not seekers > of enlightenment, or that they wouldn't benefit from > working with a "guru," if they encountered someone > they chose to address by that name. >
Anyone can choose anyone they wish to be a 'guru' of just about anything. Generically, the word 'guru' simply means 'teacher.' Guru Dev was defining the meaning of a jagad-guru, not a generic 'guru.' > Just sayin' that when you're talking to a group of > people who *assume* some mighty heavy-duty things > about the nature of the universe (such as...uh...a > belief in God), you might wanna spell that out right > at the beginning, so that you're not excluding whole > groups of spiritual seekers. :-) > The snippet from Guru Dev suggests the concept that the non-differentiated formless Absolute is included as a theistic concept - as Guru Dev expounds in other discourses on the concept that Paramatma [God] is both manifest [with form] and unmanifest [without form] and can be realized either way.
