I called sir to wish him on the occasion of gurupurnima and asked him about his views on the concept of guru and disciple. Initially he tried to avoid my question and changed the topic. But when I insisted on, he replied that his views may not be accepted by all. Later when I heard his views I said they are ‘logical’. He corrected me immediately saying that they are not logical but ‘natural’. I wish to share them with you here.
A real guru is one who makes his presence progressively unnecessary for his disciple. Similarly a real disciple is one who doesn’t require any guru at one stage. The relationship is analogous to that of a doctor and a patient. If a patient always needs a doctor, the doctor is not of high caliber. So the doctor, who doesn’t make the patient free from him, is not a great doctor. This is so with a guru too. In other words a real disciple doesn’t need a guru at one stage. Similarly a real guru matures in to a state where he does not need a disciple. So a guru looking for a disciple or a disciple seeking the support of a guru- need to move ahead and reach a stage where they don’t need each other. Both of them must feel the need for absence of each other. In other words, it suggests that continuation of guru-hood or disciple-hood is not possible. Having no bond itself creates a link between the guru and his disciple.
(You can also read sir's views on master or guru ' Master who makes you rich without giving you anything!' posted in March 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment