[Advaita-l] An anecdote

[Bhaskar YR]

> Before offering answers, I must explain my understanding of the word "guru".
> I present an allegory:
> To get to the top of Mount Everest, I would first look at some maps 
> and read guide books.
> Then I would approach a local who has already been to the summit and 
> ask for his guidance.
> I would need to trust the local's judgment and should he say "Go left" 
> and I willfully go right, I cannot expect to have him lead me to the summit.
> The maps and books are like the scripture, the guide is the method 
> personified in the guru.
> If the guide has not summited the mountain, can I expect his 
> leadership to be true?
>
> In the case of the guru, having the intrinsic knowledge of "Who I am", 
> the student cannot know what to expect but would need to trust.
> A teacher without this knowledge should not, in my understanding, be 
> referred to as guru.

praNAms 
Hare Krishna

I reckon from the above example it has been emphasized that ONLY the brahma nishTa is the guru and if he is shrOtreeya then it is an additional advantage.  But mere shrOtreeya ( the person who is familiar with maps, good understanding of guide books, easy and harmless way to reach the destination but not yet been to the top of the mountain)   cannot be called / referred as  a 'real guru' .  But the question is how can we ascertain whether one is brahmanishTa??  Unless we ourselves become brahmanishTa we cannot know the status of brahmanishTa...( saying goes only jnAni can understand another jnAni :-) So, IMO without scratching our head whether a person (who we accepted as 'guru') as brahmanishTa or otherwise, if he is capable enough to eloquently  explain the 'root map' and guide books as per guru-shishya avicchinna parampara, with the sincere mumukshatva and with the unconditional shraddhA in guru / Apta vAkya the sAdhaka  would achieve the summit.  Just sharing my opinion.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar