I take the liberty of beginning by saying something about myself and my role in talking about philosophical matters, because I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not a guru. In other words, I talk about what we call "these things" that comprise a multitude of interests concerning Oriental philosophy, psychotherapy, religion, and mysticism because I am interested in them and because I enjoy talking about them, and that explains me. In saying that I am not a guru, that means I am not trying to help you or improve you. I accept you as you are. I am not out to save the world. Of course, when a stream, a bubbling spring, flows out from the mountains, it is doing its thing. And if a thirsty traveler helps himself, that is fine. When a bird sings, it does not sing for the advancement of music. But if somebody stops to listen, and is delighted, that is fine. And I talk in the same spirit. I am not trying to create disciples. I work on the principle of a physician rather than a clergyman. A physician is always trying to get rid of his patients and send them away healthy to stand on their own feet. A clergyman is trying to get them as members of a religious organization, so that they will continue to pay the clergy, pay off the mortgage on an expensive building, and generally belong to the church, boost its membership, and thereby prove by sheer weight of numbers the veracity of its tenants. My objective is really to get rid of you so that you won't need me or any other teacher. I am afraid some of my colleagues would not approve of that attitude because it is widely said that in order to advance in the spiritual life, whatever that is, it is essential that you have a guru, and that you accord to that guru perfect obedience. I am often asked the question, "Is it really necessary to have a guru?" I can answer that only by saying, "It is necessary, if you think so." That is said in the same spirit as one might say that anybody who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. There is more in that saying than meets the car, because if you really are sincerely concerned with yourself, and are in such confusion that you feel you have to go to a psychiatrist to talk over your state, then of course you need to go. Likewise, if you are in need of someone to tell you how to practice meditation, or to attain a state of liberation, nirvana, moksha, or whatever it may be called, and if you feel that necessity very strongly, then you must do it because, as the poet William Blake said, "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." However, I do want to ask you, What is the source of a guru's authority? He can tell you that he speaks from experience, that he has experienced states of consciousness that have made him profoundly blissful, understanding, compassionate, or whatever. You have his word for it and you may have the word of other people who likewise agree with him. But each one of them, and you in turn, agrees with him from out of your own opinion, and by your own judgment. So it is you who are the source of the teacher's authority. That is true whether he speaks as an individual or as the representative of a tradition or a church. You may say that you take the Bible as your authority, or the Roman Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic follower very often says that the individual mystical experience is not to be trusted, because of its tendency to be interpreted in a purely personal way; it is the substantial and objective traditions of the church that will guard against these excesses. However, those traditions are held to be substantial and objective only because followers of those traditions believe them to be so. They say...
