Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
who is the master?
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
When it comes to Buddhism, who is the master?
There are books by Master This and Master That. There are temples run by (wo)men whom others refer to as master or teacher. There are monks, nuns and lay people who have devoted long years to practice and/or the accumulation of knowledge. Some masters are designated as masters by the masters who preceded them, but that hardly answers the question ... it just asks a new version of "who is the master?"
Few if any masters refer to themselves that way, but students keep insisting so I imagine masters must grow tired of parrying the moniker and they just make no comment. Some of those called master fall prey to their own advertising and go on to make a lot of money at the expense of others. Some masters had daddies who were masters and they inherited the mantle.
But who or what is the master? As far as I can figure out, a master is someone with a bit of street cred and the capacity to captivate ME. This is not a bad thing or a ridiculous thing -- people do the same thing all the time in daily lives that have nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism...elevating themselves or others. It can be a dangerous thing, being captivated, but life is full of risks.
Anyway ... I'm just chewing my cud here. How do you describe anyone you might call "master" or "teacher?" Would that person be a master if you didn't say so? How do you know? Do you think that because someone has a thousand devotees s/he is therefore a bonafide master or teacher? Do you think that because s/he is described as a master on Wikipedia or in some Buddhist text that it is obviously true? And if it is obviously true, who makes it true?
Any thoughts?
There are books by Master This and Master That. There are temples run by (wo)men whom others refer to as master or teacher. There are monks, nuns and lay people who have devoted long years to practice and/or the accumulation of knowledge. Some masters are designated as masters by the masters who preceded them, but that hardly answers the question ... it just asks a new version of "who is the master?"
Few if any masters refer to themselves that way, but students keep insisting so I imagine masters must grow tired of parrying the moniker and they just make no comment. Some of those called master fall prey to their own advertising and go on to make a lot of money at the expense of others. Some masters had daddies who were masters and they inherited the mantle.
But who or what is the master? As far as I can figure out, a master is someone with a bit of street cred and the capacity to captivate ME. This is not a bad thing or a ridiculous thing -- people do the same thing all the time in daily lives that have nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism...elevating themselves or others. It can be a dangerous thing, being captivated, but life is full of risks.
Anyway ... I'm just chewing my cud here. How do you describe anyone you might call "master" or "teacher?" Would that person be a master if you didn't say so? How do you know? Do you think that because someone has a thousand devotees s/he is therefore a bonafide master or teacher? Do you think that because s/he is described as a master on Wikipedia or in some Buddhist text that it is obviously true? And if it is obviously true, who makes it true?
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
if the student realizes his/her buddha nature then the teacher is no more. as all projections are seen through and no longer is there the role of teacher/student. there is only buddha nature.
a teacher is only as useful as a tool, nothing more. just like meditation or any other method. the methods destroy themselves in the end, until there is only what is.
First, it might be correct to separate the capacity to teach, and the personal ability of the person.
Secondly, in the buddhist ground, i call someone master if he is wise in terms of knowledge and experience of dependent origination
metta
-Galileo Galilei
Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)
What teacher? What master?
This world itself and everything in it is one's teacher
up until such time that the lessons of life on this plane are learned.
@newtech -- And how exactly do you determine with assurance that s/he has "experience of dependent origination?"
QUALIFICATIONS FOR A SPIRITUAL TEACHER OF BASIC PHILOSOPHY
1. Proper ethical behaviour - a guru should not harm others but try to help
2. Single pointed concentration
3. No self-grasping or egoistic thoughts
4. Having love and compassion as main motivations to teach
5. Realised emptiness, at least have a proper intellectual understanding
6. Perseverance in teaching
7. Wealth of scriptural knowledge
8. More learned and realised than student
9. Skilled speaker
10. Given up disappointment in the performance of the students
If possible, try to find a guru who possesses all these qualities, but at least the first 5. This may be difficult enough...
And also how are we to know if someone has these qualities:
"...it is difficult to recognize an authentic teacher, because these qualities are internal. We can not depend upon external factors, but external factors are what we see. It is very difficult to see the inner qualities of another person. A businessman might be friendlier to us than our best friend, while his unseen motivation is merely to make a sale. Likewise, if a "teacher" acts in a very kind and loving manner towards us it does not necessarily mean that he is compassionate and selfless, because we cannot see his motivation. We also cannot determine a teacher's qualifications based upon her fame, or whether she has thousands of students. So the seeker is left with this paradox.
There is no simple solution, but there are things we can do. First, it is important that we familiarize ourselves with the characteristics [of a spiritual teacher] discussed by Kongtrul Rinpoche. Second, we must maintain awareness of our own motivation during the process of finding a teacher. Am I seeking a teacher in order to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, or am I seeking to fulfill my need to acquire the prestige associated with a famous teacher, or am I merely attracted to a lama's beautiful retreat land or the social scene of a hip sangha, and so on.
These motivations need to be acknowledged if we are to recognize an authentic wisdom teacher, because the teacher you find is related to your karma, and your karma is intimately connected to your motivation. Fortunately, there are methods that help us purify our motivation and create the proper conditions for finding a wisdom teacher, such as bringing our awareness to our motivations as much as possible, doing daily meditation practice, and praying to the Triple Gem [Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha] that we will meet and recognize an authentic wisdom teacher."
From http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html
If what he talks matches with the suttas, if what he talks matches with logic, if when he talks i perceive knowledge that goes beyond what i consider under my own ideas "study knowledge", if when he talks i perceive under my own logics what i consider general talk, and basically some kind of value of impression,
then i consider this person might be wise in those terms.
Who, who is it?
Who, who is it?
Who, who is it?
Who, who is it?
What is it?
What is it?
What is it?
What is it?
Oh, baby it's you!
@person thank you for informative link.
_______________
And ... when the teacher is ready, the student will appear.
all books, teachers, etc are all just helpful guides.
But the ultimate master is the one reading this right NOW.....
the self grows and grows and grows.
Real masters are always humble about themselves. The arrogant never know when to respect the right teacher.
YOU ARE THE MASTER.....of you.