I am attracted to the idea of meditating upon the mind as a path to liberation, as I understand is emphasized in mahamudra. However, I dislike the idea of guru yoga, or meditating in reverence or worship towards living or recently deceased individuals, like the 16th Karmapa. Holding another person up on such a pedestal rubs me the wrong way, and I do not know if I can honestly practice guru yoga. (I wouldn’t mind meditating upon the Buddha. I understand you are supposed to imagine the guru as the Buddha, but I do not want to do that either.) Do you have any recommendations on what to do? Are there other schools that offer meditation upon the mind, but do not have such emphasis on the guru aspect? Similarly, I am discouraged by having to do so many prostrations, but this is not as discouraging as guru yoga.

I often hear this word and I think I have some doubts because in Hinduism Jupiter is called Guru. So maybe I could be misunderstanding. What do lamas mean when they say guru? Could Shree Ganesha be my Guru? Thanks

The question is just the title. Moreover, AFAIK, currently there are 2 editions of the 14th Dalai Lama Guru Yoga. (1) "The Source of All Attainments: The Yoga of the Inseparability of the Guru and Avalokiteshvara ". (2) "A Stairway to Potala: Guru Yoga of Avalokiteshvara ".

Sometimes, gurus will perform empowerment ceremonies or give lung in-person (or more recently, online) to recite a certain mantra or practice a certain deity. Sometimes this comes with samaya vows. What exactly is empowerment & lung? It is said that reciting certain mantra without empowerment is ineffective, possibly even useless. It seems that empowerment 'activates' certain aspects in the practitioner that makes the mantra 'useful'. I've heard the analogy is driving a car without fuel & driving one with fuel to describe the difference between mantra without & with empowerment. What is it about the empowerment that makes the mantra useful? What is the mechanics of this, how does this happen?

In a recent comment in a blog I've read the following remark: > "(...) Not the physical lama, not anything or anyone outside of yourself, but your own nature of mind, the true nature of reality. That’s the real lama; that’s the essential point in the vajrayana ‘system of practice’, and that has nothing to do with a bully on a throne teaching you. His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, (…) > >(...) His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, once you have that recognition, you no longer need the physical lama.(...)” I asked in that blog for a source of this (in case it is more than a personal idea, of course) but it seems I could not find the attention of the writer so far. So I ask in this forum: >Q: is this a statement which I can find in some scripture? Or, something from which it follows more or less immediately? Or is it merely the expression of an individual's conclusion? Motivation: I've nearly no knowledge of tibetan buddhism (I like the reading in the pali-canon, in some older zen-literature and feel strongly connected with the way of Thich Nhat Hanh), and am getting in contact with it currently only initiated by my following of some blogs which concern themselves with the recent revelations of misuse and misconduct by teachers (and their inner circles). The above statement surprises me in recollection of all what I've heard and read of guru-orientated buddhism and makes me curious, whether this is really a basic or at least derivable conception. (Ahh, nearly forgot: just for reference comment-in-blog )

Are there any living teachers who claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Apologies if *looking for a guru* questions are off-topic here. Is there any way to verify if they have done so, according to the sutras etc.?

Lama Atisha famously brought the teachings of Nalanda back to Tibet and authored his famous, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment upon which the new translation schools were founded. This seminal text is the foundational document of the lamrim upon which all subsequent lamrims are based. Atisha did not seem to mention guru devotion in his lamrim. Spiritual teachers are mentioned only in the course of explaining how to properly receive the Bodhisattva vows and to receive Tantric initiations. Nowhere can I find the idea that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Je Tsongkhapa on the other hand listed guru devotion towards the very beginning of his lamrim and it is widely taught in new translation schools that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Why is this? Why would something so important and fundamental be left out entirely by Lama Atisha from his seminal text? Also, this is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said about guru devotion in *Questioning the Advice of the Guru*: > It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru yoga is > to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect. > Personally I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see > written in the scriptures, “Every action seen as perfect.” However, > this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni’s own > words: “Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst > buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me.” The problem with > the practice of seeing everything the guru does as perfect is that it > very easily turns to poison for both the guru and the disciple. > Therefore, whenever I teach this practice, I always advocate that the > tradition of “every action seen as perfect” not be stressed. Should > the guru manifest unDharmic qualities or give teachings contradicting > Dharma, the instruction on seeing the spiritual master as perfect must > give way to reason and Dharma wisdom. > > Perhaps you will think: “The Dalai Lama has not read the Lam Rim > scriptures. He does not know that there is no practice of Dharma > without the guru.” I am not being disrespectful of the Lam Rim > teachings. A student of the spiritual path should rely upon a teacher > and should meditate on that teacher’s kindness and good qualities; but > the teaching on seeing his or her actions as perfect can only be > applied within the context of the Dharma as a whole and the rational > approach to knowledge that it advocates. As the teachings on **seeing > the guru’s actions as perfect is borrowed from Highest Tantra and > appears in the Lam Rim mainly to prepare the trainee for tantric > practice**, beginners must treat it with caution. As for spiritual > teachers, if they misrepresent this precept of guru yoga in order to > take advantage of naive disciples, their actions are like pouring > the liquid fires of hell directly into their stomachs. Emphasis mine. If preparing the trainee for Tantric practice is the reason for adding it to the Lamrim, then is it true that guru devotion is not of such importance for those studying sutra only? In other words, can it be said that for those practicing *sutrayana only* that guru devotion is not the root of the path?