CHAPTER TWO

ASPECTS OF SOME SPIRITUAL MASTER TRADITIONS

IN HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM

THE SPIRITUAL MASTER

All religious traditions, however different they may be from one another, believe in the necessity of a spiritual master to bring about full spiritual realization. He—or she—may be known by different names, but the basic roles of “master” common to all traditions are that of teacher of wisdom, guide along the path toward perfection, and vehicle by which fullness of life is communicated to the disciple. So indispensable is this person in all religions that Catherine Cornille, following Jung, speaks of the “archetypal figure of the spiritual master.”[1]

“Master” is never to be seen as an isolated reality; it is essentially in relation to a disciple (or disciples) that the master becomes such. “While a disciple is born when a true master is found, it is in turn the surrender of the disciple which makes the master.”[2] Moreover, every master-disciple relationship is different from all others, since what is communicated is the master’s uniquely personal experience of spiritual fulfillment; it is transmitted in a manner that respects the uniqueness of the disciple.

A third thing to note is that “master” is a figure of power. His power is essentially charismatic rather than institutional or juridical; though he may at times also hold positions of authority in the latter sense, his power is not conferred by these positions. It flows from the fact that he embodies in his life the highest and ultimate aspirations of the religious tradition he belongs to—spiritual liberation, perfection, sainthood. It is for this reason that he can enlighten and guide others to follow the same path and attain the same goal.

While “master” requires sanctity, a saint may not always be called to become a master; the two terms—saint and master—are not identical. A saint only becomes a master when disciples follow him, that is, when he becomes a spiritual teacher. Cornille notes: “The spiritual master may be regarded as a saint become teacher.”[3] However, here again a distinction is to be made, between “teacher” in the ordinary sense, and “spiritual teacher” or “master.” Cornille continues:

Like the teacher, the spiritual master is one who possesses a body of knowledge or experience which he is willing to transmit to others, and which puts him in a position of authority. The basis of their authority, as well as the content and the form of their teaching differentiates, however, the spiritual master from the teacher.[4]

In the teacher-student relationship, what is central is the content to be transmitted, whether this involves knowledge, an art or craft, and certain skills. What matters is that the teacher is an expert in what he teaches, and the length of the relationship depends on how quickly the student assimilates that content. The teacher’s personality is much less important than what he teaches.

This fact is not so for the master-disciple relationship. Even though there is an objective body of knowledge as well as skills to be transmitted, what matters more is the master’s personal attainment of the ideal of human fulfillment that he communicates. It is because of this that the master is able to touch the core of the disciple’s being so that he too experiences the breakthrough to transformation.

When Pauline Founder Alberione chose to structure his spirituality around the figure of Jesus Christ as Master, Way, Truth, and Life, he anchors the roots of his spirituality into the ideal of “master” found in his own Christian tradition with its Jewish underpinnings as expressed in Scripture. [a]

However, Alberione is also tapping into the rich vein of the universal (archetypal) religious tradition of “master,” which therefore becomes a starting point for interreligious dialogue and the inculturation of his spirituality. For this doctoral project the area of the inculturation of spirituality is Asia. It is indispensable to look more closely into some of the more widespread Asian traditions of spiritual master, particularly those of Hinduism and Buddhism.

THE GURU OF HINDUISM

The religion of Hinduism, predominantly Indian and one of the principal and most ancient (at least three millennia old), is without a founder. It consists of a vast and complex “mass of religious systems, a mosaic of probably all known forms of religious philosophies and social structures, rich traditions, myths, of peoples of various epochs.… In the course of its history [it] has developed and is still generating many reform movements.”[5] Hinduism asserts belief in a God who is totally other, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, blissful in himself, but who is also intimately close to us and can (in some traditions like the Vaishnavite) descend, take on visible form, and be a friend to human beings (avatar).

In the Hindu religion, the term for spiritual master, taken from the Sanskrit, is guru. [b] The guru tradition referred to in this doctoral project is for the most part that which is found in the Saiva Siddhanta religious philosophy of Tamilnadu, considered to be one of the most systematic and well-articulated schools of Hindu religious truth in India today.[6]

“Saiva” refers to those Hindu schools that use the name “Siva” or “Sivam” for the Ultimate Being, God. Another Hindu school, Vaishnavism, so called because it looks to Vishnu as the Supreme Being, provides other aspects of the guru tradition utilized in this project.

Central Significance of the Guru for Spiritual Development:

This section presents the basic presuppositions about life, God, the human person, and the ultimate meaning of life, that underlie the guru concept. Essential to Hindu doctrine is the belief that “all life, whether supernatural, human, animal, insect, or with some sects even vegetable, is governed by the same law,” that of samsara or transmigration.[7] All living beings have souls that are essentially equal, differentiated only “through karma, or the effect of previous deeds, which conditions the integuments of subtle and gross matter imprisoning the souls and thus leads to their successive re-births in different types of body.”[8]

Taking into account this basic doctrine, the focus here is on human life in particular. The key words in considering human destiny are God (pati), soul (pasu), and bondage (pasam).[9] God is the Supreme Being, infinite bliss. The soul, as distinct from the body, is eternal and destined to reach union (advaita) with God. What hinders it is the threefold bondage of egocentrism (anavam, which leads to ignorance because it blinds the soul to the truth), the action-result dynamic (karma), and matter (maya). It is God who frees the soul from bondage, and the guru is essential to that salvific process.

Nature, Roles and Functions, Characteristics of the Guru:

Guru is a word laden with connotations of power, starting from its etymological meaning: “heavy,” “weighty,” “one bearing much power.”[c]

Though the title guru has been referred to parents and other kinds of teachers, its usual meaning indicates a person—whether man or woman—who unveils the true significance of life, being the custodian and transmitter of the sacred writings and religious traditions of the faith, and the exemplar of the perfect liberated existence toward which he or she guides the disciple.

Ultimately, it is only God who saves the soul, releasing it from the recurring cycle of samsara. However, the guru is instrumental in this salvation, so that he can be considered as Siva himself in human form. In his presentation of the guru in Saiva Siddhanta, Thangaraj seems to be following this line of thinking: “Sivam enlightens the soul, concealing Sivaself in a human guru. Thus the guru is not a mere teacher in the popular meaning of that term; rather the guru is teacher-initiator-savior.”[10] Because of this, the disciple surrenders to the guru as to Siva himself. Some currents of Saivism have gone so far as to speak of “deifying the guru,” who, “considered venerable in the beginning, began to be treated in [the] course of time as sacred and divine, and later, became the object of devotion and worship, representing and mediating the divinity.”[11]

Some important distinctions are to be made. In Saivism, though the guru can be considered as God in human form, he is not, as in Vaishnavism, an avatar or incarnation of God.[d] As J. Carman notes:

Some Hindu thinkers who consider Siva rather than Vishnu to be the supreme Lord have rejected the avatar doctrine. In this view God is formless but manifests himself in various playful appearances and is paradoxically present in human teachers. These gurus are to be regarded by their disciples (but not by themselves) as the human form of the Divine Guru.[12]

For Saivism, “being God in human form” must be understood not ontologically but functionally, in terms of the role the guru plays as God’s instrument in the liberation and transformation of the disciple. The only real Guru is Siva himself. But the human guru is an instrument so finely tuned to the Divine, so one with him, that in a certain sense he makes the Divine visible. As Thangaraj writes: “It is the very transparency of the guru to Sivam that makes the disciple see the guru as the very Sivam.”[13]

Xavier Irudayaraj presents a classification of the guru into four types according to the function or functions performed by him.[14] These are not to be taken as rigidly exclusive, one of the others; in concrete gurus they are often found in combination. These four types are:

1. the Vedic-Guru (Karma Guru) who is a preceptor knowledgeable in Scripture and the mores of right living and therefore functions as a guide;

2. the Vedanta-Guru who has achieved perfection and thus is the revealer of the way to liberation through the enlightenment he communicates;

3. the Yoga-Guru who is a master of techniques that lead to liberation;

4. the Bhakta-Guru who symbolizes or represents the Divine, and is a mediator between God and the soul, and an instrument by which the soul attains perfection.

Guru-sisya (master-disciple) Relationship:

As for all spiritual masters in various religious traditions, the status of guru cannot be an achievement of the person alone; it comes when the guru is acknowledged by disciples and other gurus. Vaishnavism insists on the guru being connected to a clearly mapped-out lineage of gurus. Saivism does not require this but believes that the guru’s importance and beneficial role in regard to the sisya depends more on his attainment of genuine spiritual maturity than on his lineage. The point is that the guru is such in virtue of his relationship to the sisya.

To be of assistance to a sisya, the guru in the view of Cornille is to be imbued with certain indispensable qualities:[15]

1. he has the same characteristics he trains his disciple to attain: tranquility; self-control; detachment from pleasures; freedom from pride, deceit, jealousy and all other vices incompatible with a blameless life;

2. he has achieved a permanent state of liberation (moksha);

3. he has a thorough knowledge of the sacred writings;

4. he has no more need of rituals, since these are based on a sense of duality between the Divine to whom ritual is directed, and the performer of the rite, while the guru has attained oneness with the Divine;

5. he becomes a transparent communication of God’s presence, and having transcended himself, can reach out to help others in the quest with compassion and skill.

The disciple in his turn is characterized by Cornille with the following traits:[16]

1. a singlehearted desire for salvation which urges him to seek out a guru, and to abandon everything else to follow him;

2. surrender and obedience to his master, devoted service to his person, bringing about the humility, self-surrender, and liberation from the threefold bondage of egoism, action-result dynamic, and matter;

3. dynamic, total involvement in the disciplines of the learning and liberating process, which may take years of practice in rigorous techniques. Moreover, he needs to listen patiently and submissively to the guru’s teachings expressed not only in oral and written instructions but in the guru’s actions and behavior. On these he spends hours of meditation and repeated practice until the breakthrough to enlightenment.

Finally, the guru-sisya relationship ceases when the sisya attains to full liberation and can then become guru to others.

THE SPIRITUAL MASTER IN BUDDHISM

The dhamma or dharma of Buddhism, that is, Buddhist teachings, originated in India around the sixth century BC; they are linked decisively to the figure of Gautama Buddha. These teachings, which have branched out into many schools and currents through the centuries, have the greatest number of adherents especially in Southeast Asia. At present, there are three distinct groups of Buddhists: (a) the oldest traditions are taught by the Theravada group, which predominates in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand; (b) the Mahayana adherents, established in China, Korea and Japan, represent the second phase of Buddhist development that arose around the beginning of the Christian era, though many of its basic ideas go further back, at least to the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ, it claims to be the “Greater Vehicle for going Beyond,” to salvation, to Nirvana; (c) the Vajrayana school, found in Tibet, is in reality an offshoot of the Great Vehicle, but distinguishes itself by certain techniques developed in the tantras, as its basic texts are called. These techniques help to achieve a more rapid attainment of enlightenment.

Central Importance of the Master for Spiritual Development:

Like Hinduism, Buddhism starts from the presupposition that human existence is inherently flawed, out of joint, in a state of ‘dis-ease’ (dukkha). For the Buddhist, as for the Hindu, the wheel of samsara turns repeatedly for all living beings, including humans, till the passage through births and rebirths leads to purification. For human beings, the process of liberation can be speeded up through well-directed, well-tested and constant personal effort to attain Nirvana, defined by I.B. Horner[17] as a state

… where there is no more coming to birth and aging and dying … where life is [no longer] led under the thrall of sense-desires to which a man is tied by his ignorance and his consequent incapacity to realize that neither the sense-organs nor the sense-data nor the meeting of the two in the appropriate field of consciousness are mine or I or my self, any more than are the five aggregates of existence.[e]

Unlike Hinduism, which believes in a Supreme Being who saves, Buddhism stresses that every person can attain salvation by his own efforts. This lack of belief in a Supreme Being is why Buddhism strictly speaking does not consider itself to be a religion. “It is an education, not a religion.”[18] However, the process of liberation is arduous, and some achieve the goal more quickly and with more skill. These persons are the spiritual masters.

Nature, Roles and Functions, Characteristics of the Master:

The master is known by many names in the various Buddhist traditions. Some of these names are: sastr (teacher), acarya (master), lama (transmitter of traditions, guide to perfection), bodhisattva (“enlightenment being,” the compassionate one), kalyana-mitta (or kalyanamitra, friendly guide, good and virtuous friend), Zen master (teacher of an oral tradition, master of experiential techniques for enlightenment).[19] For the purposes of this study, attention will be paid to the last three titles: bodhisattva, kalyana-mitta, and “Zen master.”

Bodhisattva:

This word may be roughly translated as “the Being set on Enlightenment,” and in Theravada Buddhism, there is really only one Bodhisattva, that Great Being who millennia ago made a vow to the first Buddha who had declared his intention to achieve complete enlightenment. This Bodhisattva underwent many births, faithful to his vow of pursuing his quest, enduring the hardships involved.

The last of this Bodhisattva’s births was accomplished in Siddhartha Gautama, who entered upon the quest for Nirvana, “the Unborn, the Unageing, Undecaying, Undying, the Sorrowless and the Stainless,”[20] and became the Buddha on the Night of Awakening, under the bodhi-tree (or bo-tree), winning complete and full enlightenment by himself.[21] This momentous event secured for him the unique title of “the Wholly Self-Awakened One.” All other spiritual masters look to him as the supreme teacher.

The roots of the spiritual master tradition in Buddhism are traced back to the fundamental decision that the Buddha made when he broke through to transformation on the Night of Awakening. Meditating after that experience on the joy and freedom he had achieved and knowing how many still were in need of transformation, he decided out of compassion to postpone his definitive entry into Nirvana and not to keep his experience to himself but to share it. He felt his task to be that of helping others tap into the inner spiritual powers latent in everyone, through teachings and the way of spiritual disciplines and the practice of virtues. This is basically what makes a bodhisattva.

Edward Conze speaks of the Mahayana ideal of bodhisattva (he includes here the Tibetan branch as well), in the following terms:

Here was the image of an ideal man, who could stir the hearts of all,
whether rich or poor, learned or ignorant, strong or weak, monks or laymen. It could easily win their admiration, for it reflected what was best in them. It could also become a basis for immediate action, because it could be adjusted to the infinite variety of human circumstances. Put forth with self-sacrificing zeal, with all the resources of eloquence and all the refinements of art, the Bodhisattva ideal has been one of the most potent ideas of human thought….

What then is a “Bodhisattva”? … the Sanskrit term bodhi means
”enlightenment,” and sattva “‘being” or “essence.” A Bodhisattva is thus a person who is in his essential being … motivated by the desire to win full enlightenment—to become a Buddha. Destined to become a Buddha, he nevertheless, in order to help suffering creatures, selflessly postpones his entrance into the bliss of Nirvana and his escape from this world of birth and death.

From another angle a Bodhisattva is said to be dominated by two
forces—compassion and wisdom. Compassion governs his conduct
toward his fellow beings, wisdom his attitude to Reality.[22]

Compassion and wisdom go together; for compassion, to be true and selfless, must be guided and motivated by wisdom which comes from enlightenment, from “a thorough and complete understanding of the nature and meaning of life, the forces which shape it, the method to end it, and the reality which lies beyond it.”[23]

The stress on the humanness of the bodhisattva, his accessibility and nearness to people, is one of the reasons why this type of spiritual master succeeds in attracting disciples.

The Bodhisattvas … are much nearer to us in their mentality, and they
take good care to remain in touch with the imperfect by having the same
passions as they have, although, as distinct from them, these passions
neither affect nor pollute their minds. Not yet having become everything, the Bodhisattvas are not quite beyond our ken, and we can appreciate that, while all the time intent on their transcendental goal, they remain during their struggles always aware of their solidarity with all that lives, in accordance with the famous saying:

“Can there be bliss when all that lives must suffer?

Shalt thou be saved and hear the whole world cry?”
(H.P. Blavatsky, The Voice of Silence, p.78)[24]

Kalyana-mitta:

The figure of the spiritual master as bodhisattva, the enlightened and compassionate one, is most compatible with the ideal of the master as “spiritual friend,” kalyana-mitta, which is stressed in early Buddhism and is still one of the current ways by which the master is regarded. Wayman quotes from the Mahayana-Sutralamkara, XVII, 10, the following passage which describes this ideal:

Rely upon the friend who is disciplined, self-controlled, puts to rest (his
mental defilements) and leaves the merits (active), strives, is rich in scriptures; comprehends reality, skillful in speech, compassionate by nature, and never wearies (to teach).[25]

James Boyd[26] develops the features and functions of the kalyana-mitta, choosing as exemplar the figure of the Gautama Buddha himself who can be regarded “as a mediating friend of a special sort … who helped his contemporaries come to the realization of the Truth (dhamma) and who through his Teaching (dhamma) and established Order (sangha) continues to be an important guide for Buddhists.”[27]

The term kalyana-mitta brings together two words: kalyana and mitta. The latter signifies “friend.” Kalyana, according to Boyd, refers to the qualities of this special friend:

Kalyana has to do with a beauty, both physical and moral, that graces a person’s actions and attitudes; a graciousness of character that one is attracted to and wishes he could possess in the same manner. This beauty of character stems from, is rooted in, the clarity of moral goodness and righteousness which defines man as he should be rather than what he usually is.… The teaching of the Buddha, the Dhamma, is often described as ‘kalyana in its beginning, its middle
and end.’ … The Buddha established conformity with what is truly kalyana, i.e.,with what is truly good, beautiful, noble and worthy, the Truth (dhamma).[28]

A kalyana-mitta is a friend (mitta) who possesses all the qualities of a person who is ‘good at heart,’ and does so with an appropriateness which is aestherically and morally compelling to others. His voice, choice of words and delivery, his character and deeds, hence his reputation, are all kalyana. He who has a ‘kalyana-mitta (friend), a kalyana companion, a kalyana comrade,‘ has established the conditions which enable him to follow the Path to Enlightenment. Such association and friendship will help him become established in virtues, and in good mental states, and eventually to attain to freedom…[29]

The spiritual friend’s relationship with the disciple is marked by the pleasing qualities that attend a friendship. However, it is not all sweetness and light. As a real friend will need to be firm in pointing out to his friend what in his character or actions is not in accord with the truth and the good and the beautiful, so the kalyana-mitta does not hesitate to lead his disciple-friend by way of various disciplines that are intended to break down selfishness, greed, cravings, and hardheartedness that block the road to enlightenment. The kalyana-mitta’s compassion is not weak and sentimental.

Zen Master:

Disciplines and rigorous techniques to bring the disciple to enlightenment are a priorily concern for the sect of Buddhism known as Ch’an in China and Zen in Japan. It is noted for its marked emphasis on direct, intuitive experience of enlightenment that goes beyond dependence on texts and words and concepts. Its “founder” and first patriarch in China, Bodhidharma, is the reputed author of the following verses:

A special tradition outside the scriptures;

No dependence upon words or letters;

Direct pointing at the soul of man;

Seeing into one’s own nature, and the attainment of Buddhahood.[30]

The Zen master is noted for his use of paradox, absurd statements (koans), physical shock tactics that may even be violent (shouting, nose-pulling, hitting with a cane)—all of which are meant to bring about a direct, unexpected encounter with reality that precipitates the disciple into enlightenment more than hours of quiet absorption in meditation. One Japanese master, Hakuin, attacked what he called “silent-illumination Zen” or “dead sitting.” Yampolsky writes:

Monks and teachers of eminent virtue, surrounded by hosts of disciples
and eminent worthies, foolishly take the dead teachings of no-thought
and no-mind, where the mind is like dead ashes with wisdom obliterated, and make these into the essential doctrines of Zen. They practice silent,dead sitting as though they were incense burners in some old mausoleum and take this to be the treasure place of the true practice of the patriarchs. They make rigid emptiness, indifference, and black stupidity the ultimate essence for accomplishing the Great Matter (Yampolsky, 1971, p. 170). [31]

Disciple-Master Relationship:

Looking at the figure and roles of the spiritual master in some forms of Buddhism, it is possible to summarize at this point the more typical characteristics of both master and disciple and the relationship between them that is defined by these characteristics.

The qualities of the master as bodhisattva flow from his reality as a wise and compassionate being, won by his own efforts and experience. It is this compassion that moves him to share with unselfish love his grasp of the Truth, to guide with an expertise born of experience those who seek the Truth, to lead them to their own experience of enlightenment and freedom. His relationship with each disciple is unique, since he sees clearly what each one is and needs.

This relationship may be described as the intimacy that marks true friendship; this ideal makes of the master a kalyanamitta. Boyd[32] draws out the implications of this relationship; for him the master possesses these characteristics:

1. his love is disinterested, respectful;

2. he is a true and provident helper and refuge in need;

3. he is constant in the friendship, whether in happiness or misfortune;

4. his love excels in four aspects: metta (loving-kindness or friendliness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkha (equanimity);

5. he confides his secrets and keeps that which the disciple entrusts to him;

6. he offers the most suitable advice, being a good counsellor;

7. he is uncompromising and firm regarding what is for the real good of the disciple and is not afraid to be harsh when needed for the purification of the disciple from what keeps him unfree;

8. he can lay down his life for the disciple.[33]

The Zen master is distinguished especially in regard to methods and techniques that link up with the seventh characteristic above. He is radical in his efforts to break down not only the greed, selfishness, desire and all that blocks the person from virtue, but he goes even deeper, to challenge the most basic and subtlest illusions of self-consciousness. Direct experience of enlightenment is the goal of all the paradoxical, startling, even harsh training that he makes the disciple undergo.
As for the disciple[34] the qualities required in Buddhism are similar to those in the Hindu tradition:

1. he seeks out the master with a heart bent on perfection, and for this he is willing to leave home, family, possessions, career, worldly honor, to stay with the master;

2. he puts his whole being into the search for the Truth, and submits to the master’s teaching and guidance;

3. he responds to the master’s friendship with faith, trust, love, honor, reverence, and devotedly ministers to his master’s every need, serving him even in the most ordinary things;

4. he can, when he has attained perfection, be equal to his master and become in turn a master to others.

CONCLUDING SYNTHESIS

This chapter has presented an overview of spiritual master traditions found in some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism. Aspects of these traditions explored were: the central significance of the master for spiritual growth toward perfection (enlightenment, wisdom, liberation, transformation); the nature, roles and functions, and characteristics of the master, and essential elements of the master-disciple relationship.

Worthy of note is the stress on experience rather than speculation as the basis of the master’s achievement of salvation and his credibility, and of the training that he provides for the disciple.

In terms of power, it is clear that the master is a power figure. He is so because of his oneness with the Omnipotent Supreme Being in some traditions (i.e., in Hinduism); thus, he can command the disciple’s surrender and total submission, and these are ultimately directed to the God of which he is an instrument. Or (as in Buddhism) his power stems from his personal achievement of perfection, of full awakening to reality, to which all aspire. It is to be noted, however, that such power does not make him a god. In Hinduism, he as it were disappears into Siva, the only real guru. In Buddhism, personal achievement of perfection is not equivalent to self-realization in the Western sense. This is true because the perfection that the master reaches is the perfection of no-self and of freedom from egocentrism and its manifestations: desire, greed, domination of others, and hardheartedness. In Asian spiritual master traditions, power must be interpreted in categories different from the usual meaning given to that word in ordinary parlance.

Contents <<Prev Next>>

ENDNOTES

1 Catherine Cornille, The Guru in Indian Catholicism: Ambiguity or Opportunity of Inculturation? From the series: Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs (Louvain: Peeters Press, 1991), 10.

2 Ibid., 29.

3 Ibid., 23.

4 Ibid.

5 Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Journeying Together: The Catholic Church in dialogue with the Religious Traditions of the World (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999), 24.

6 Cf M. Thomas Thangaraj, The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross-Cultural Christianity (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1994), 35 and ff.

7 A. L. Basham, “Hinduism,” in Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions, ed. R.C. Zaehner (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1988), 217.

8 Ibid.

9 Cf Thangaraj, 40-46.

10 Thangaraj, 58.

11 Xavier Irudayaraj, “The Guru in Hinduism and Christianity,” Vidyajyoti 39, no. 8 (1975), 342

12 John B. Carman, Majesty and Meekness: A Comparative Study of Contrast and Harmony in the Concept of God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 208.

13 Thangaraj, 53.

14 Irudayaraj, 340-341.

15 Cf Cornille, 45-46.

16 Ibid., 43-44, 46-47.

17 “Buddhism: The Theraveda,” in Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions, ed. R.C. Zaehner (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1988), 288.

18 Amitabha Buddhist Society (Singapore), A Path to True Happiness, audiocassette.

19 These names are cited in Alex Wayman, “The Guru in Buddhism,” Studia Missionalia 36 (1987), 196 and Stuart W. Smithers, “Spiritual Guide,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 14, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 34-35.

20 Horner, 270.

21 Cf Ibid., 268.

22 Edward Conze, “Buddhism: The Mahayana,” in Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions, ed. R.C. Zaehner (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1988), 297.

23 Ibid., 300.

24 Ibid., 302.

25 Wayman, 197-198.

26 James W. Boyd, “Buddhas and the Kalyana-mitta,” Studia Missionalia 21 (1972): 57-76.

27 Ibid., 57-58.

28 Ibid., 63.

29 Ibid., 64.

30 Quoted in Smithers, 35.

31 Ibid., 36

32 Cf Boyd, 58 and ff.

33 Ibid., 72.

34 Ibid., 74 and ff.

[a] In Chapter One of this doctoral project this Judeo-Christian view of “master” was briefly presented. For a fuller discussion, cf Cornille, Chapter Three, 50-74. Elements from this source will be referred to in the fourth chapter of this doctoral project, when Alberionian Christology is compared with the Hindu and Buddhist views of “master.”

[b] Though belonging to the Hindu tradition, guru has become a familiar term for spiritual master, and has been taken into Western culture, where it retains its meaning of teacher, expert and guide though it has lost its essential link to the spiritual dimension and may refer also to other areas of life such as business, politics, the media, and so on.

[c] It is noteworthy that even in the Hebrew, rabbi, the word for “master,” etymologically signifies “my great one” (from the root rav, meaning “great, powerful”).

[d] It is important to note that the Vaishnavite concept of avatar is not what Christians mean when they speak of God’s incarnation in Christ. More will be said of this in later chapters.

[e] “These five aggregates [khandha] form the psycho-physical stuff of which a ‘being’ consists. Physiologically, the body or material part (rupa) is composed of … earth, water, heat and wind. The non-material parts (nama) of a ‘being’ are feeling, perception, the volitional activities or habitual tendencies, and consciousness. [The] … nature [of nama-rupa] is that each of the five khandha of which it consists is a group of grasping: after sense-pleasures, speculative views, rites, and ceremonies and the theory of a persistent self…. These are fetters, unreleased from which the uninstructed person is not free from birth, ageing and dying, from grief and sorrow, or from anguish.” I.B. Horner, “Buddhism: The Theravada,” in Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions, ed. R.C. Zaehner (N.Y.: Barnes and Noble, 1988), 280.