God Vs. Guru

[Believer]

"Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu Gurur devo Maheshvarah
Gurur sakshaat Param Brahman tasmai Sri Gurave namaha"

Approximate translation: Guru is Brahma, Vishnu and Lord Maheshvara. Guru is the Supreme Brahman Himself in physical form. Prostrations to the Guru.

I have read it, heard it being recited and struggled with it for a long time.

A genuine Guru would help you to elevate your level of consciousness so as to experience the divine. But, why in the world should I elevate the Guru to a level, where I have to equate him to different incarnations of the Divine, put him on a higher pedestal and worship him before I worship the Lord Himself. Granted that he did me a great favor - he introduced me to this higher level of consciousness, he enabled me to be one with the Lord, he enabled me to experience the Divine while still in my mortal garb; but does that qualify him to get to the head of the line and be the first one to be worshiped in my puja? Does he automatically assume a higher pedestal than God Himself in my Sadhana? Why should I accord him the same reverence (or even more) than what is reserved for the Supreme?

I for one, have never been able to understand/come to terms with this concept of 'guru puja' being higher than the 'puja of the Divine' Himself. Does this concept come from some scripture, or was it enunciated/written by a guru to command his disciples to put him before God? Anyone have any scripture-based, authoritative explanation of this? Thanks.

Note: For those who may not know, in traditional Hinduism, it is widely believed (and practiced) that the Guru merits a higher place in one's devotion than the Lord Himself.
-

[Water]

In my travels...

Sri Adi Shankaracharya is the author of the quoted excerpt and a known proponent of Advaita Vedanta.

Guru cannot *not* be the same as God as God is everyone and everything. There is no superiority/inferiority - only equality.

[Jainarayan]

It translates as:

The Teacher is Brahma; the Teacher is Vishnu; The Teacher is the Lord Maheswara;

Truly the Teacher is the Supreme Brahman; to that respected Teacher I bow.

The prayer is referring to, and praising God as the Teacher, not elevating or praising a teacher (a guru) as God. This is my understanding of it. Unfortunately that's all I can offer with my as yet limited knowledge.

[Water]

The prayer is referring to, and praising God as the Teacher, not elevating or praising a teacher (a guru) as God. This is my understanding of it. Unfortunately that's all I can offer with my as yet limited knowledge.

When I first heard Guru Stotram, I thought the same thing.

I am under the impression that may not be correct, though. I believe it does intend to convey that Guru is God and not the other way around. Of course, in monism, the other way around is the same.

Here is a complete form with English translation -

http://www.celextel.org/stotras/other/gurustotram.html

I am also under the impression that this stotram is used in many sampradayas - including dvaita or dualism. In that case, the opening post may be correct.

Of course...... I could be completely wrong.

[Jainarayan]

I see what you mean.

Yes, it could mean that the (human) guru is God or that God is the guru. I think it depends on the original Sanskrit, which is a highly inflected language.

What I know of how Sanskrit works (and Russian, Greek, Latin and other highly inflected languages) is that word order is not as important as how the root of the word is case marked.

I know that a guru is highly revered and often highly enlightened, but I am a little dismayed that a human, no matter how enlightened, would be equated with God.

[Onkara]

Namast�
Some schools of Sanatana Dharma pivot on one single concept:
Creator and creation are connected, united, the same.

The Guru is then, united and divine.

That also implies every other person is too. The difference, one might say, is that the Guru has recognised that divinity in him/herself and in others. The Guru is said to know the divine. The Mundaka upanishad confirm that he who knows Brahman becomes brahman:

Mundaka III-ii-9: Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief, and rises above aberrations; and becoming freed from the knots of the heart, he attains immortality."

Our attitude to the Guru is ultimately our choice. So there is no reason why you, I or anyone should be concerned about this, unless we have reached a state where the Guru is the next step in our path to moskha i.e. to know why you and I are divine and the divine resides in all of creation.

It is the ego-sense (mind), pride, wealth and ultimately mAyA, which conceals this and holds us back from bowing to the the Guru (respected teacher) and perhaps even God for some.

It appears in the Shiva Sutras:

2.6 GururupAyah
"The Guru who has attained Self-realisation can alone help the aspirant in acquiring it".

The concept of Guru as divine, might also be found in purunas e.g. Srimad Bahgavatam. Perhaps someone can confirm easily?

Pranams

[Jainarayan]

Namast�
Some schools of Sanatana Dharma pivot on one single concept:
Creator and creation are connected, united, the same.

The Guru is then, united and divine.

That also implies every other person is too. The difference, one might say, is that the Guru has recognised that divinity in him/herself and in others. The Guru is said to know the divine.

This makes sense. Now I think I see what it means... both things at the same time. The human guru is (filled with and pervaded by) God and God is the guru. It's not the human form being honored, it's God in the human form(?).

It's true that some things shouldn't be thought on too deeply. The words are in Scripture, the wise and scholarly have interpreted it and studied it deeply, we follow it.

Sometimes if you take something apart to see what it's made of, that's not a wise thing to do. Likewise, if your mind wanders too far that can also be unwise, and you can get lost.

[Onkara]

This makes sense. Now I think I see what it means... both things at the same time. The human guru is (filled with and pervaded by) God and God is the guru. It's not the human form being honored, it's God in the human form(?).

Namasté Minotaur
Yes, exactly. The human form is just that - form. It consists of elements (or modern science would say atoms or genetic tissue formation, perhaps). It is the form which is born, is maintained and eventually dissolves, not atman - Brahman. The scriptures explain all this and the Guru removes the remaining doubts.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Sorry, Believer, but I'm not big on scripture, so you have to just get my simple interpretation, somewhat less than two bits, if its worth anything at all.

I think the confusion arises with mixing Guru's personality with Guru's holiness, of God (divinity) within Guru. The two are separate concepts.

In my experience, it (the worship of Guru) is all for the benefit of the devotee, certainly not the Guru.

Aum Namasivaya

[Jainarayan]

The scriptures explain all this and the Guru removes the remaining doubts.

I just bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads, both translated by Eknath Easwaran. I'm about to start reading Gita first.