Dear Folks,
In Theravada Buddhism, does a serious practitioner have to follow and be devoted to a guru/master ? Or is the Pali cannon the "guru" ? Or both ?
Thanks
Mike
Gurus ??
- Bohemian Seeker
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:46 pm
- Location: Liberec, Czech Republic
- LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Gurus ??
Most who seriously study Theravada will have a teacher, but rarely a "master" or "guru." I think it's a little more informal.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Gurus ??
or at least Admiral FriendsLonesomeYogurt wrote:Most who seriously study Theravada will have a teacher, but rarely a "master" or "guru." I think it's a little more informal.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill