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.
Another one about picking guru
Jeffrey
Veteran
I thought we could go over this again because it's important. This is from namoamituofo a free email teaching you may receive called the daily enlightenment
There is the mistaken notion, that after 'carefully' choosing human gurus (spiritual teachers), we should trust them completely, that as all gurus are 'empty' in nature, all the good and bad qualities we perceive of them are merely our projections. This idea is wrong on many levels. Because we are not enlightened, the teacher we choose might be unenlightened as well. Thus, if we totally entrust our spirituality to them without question, it could be dangerous. (Even recent history shows that there are gurus assumed to be 'great' who turn out to have great misgivings.) Yet, we have to choose who is worth learning from with the best of our limited wisdom – which we should continually strive to increase. Blind faith in any teacher or teaching is a big no-no, for it is the nemesis of discerning wisdom. True spiritual devotion is towards the perfect wisdom that teachers dispense; not to their imperfect personalities. If any teacher demands the latter, he or she would surely be a faulty self-centred teacher; and not a Dharma-centred one.
If everything about teachers is projected from the side of the students, this would mean that the teachers would be exactly the same as each student in every way! Of course, this is never the case. If all teachers are not different from their students, the teachers ought to be done away with, for every student might as well simply take their reflections in the mirror to be their own teachers! It is exactly because teachers are supposedly superior in compassion and wisdom that students learn from them. However, the ways teachers are perceived are indeed to some extent dependent on their students' perceptions. But if they are willing to learn, they learn to be open-minded, by clarifying doubts and clearing bias instead of just stubbornly hanging on to them. When students stop intelligent enquiry though, blind faith in their teachers starts seeping in. They might even aggressively rationalise their teacher's faults to others.
Some even use faulty teachings learnt to defend sound criticisms about their teachers, claiming the critics to be biased, when they are the ones who are. Some say that their teachers being criticised only reflects that all teachers, like everything else, are of 'emptiness'. This is a severely deluded perspective. If everything is of 'emptiness', does it mean that anything goes when it comes to conduct and teachings? Why learn anything from any specific teacher then? Some erroneously claim that as their teachers are 'empty', if they are seen as erroneous, it is due to erroneous personal perceptions. Surely, when teachers break the precepts, it does not mean that their misconduct is their students' fault. Sometimes, poor teachers might turn out to have good students, who have better conduct than them! Seeing anyone as 'empty' does not absolve that person's misdeeds or dissolve the possible harms of such mistakes. [continue here]
May all faulty teachers swiftly awaken to their mistakes.
May all faulty students swiftly awaken to their mistakes.
May all swiftly awaken one another to one another's mistakes.
There is the mistaken notion, that after 'carefully' choosing human gurus (spiritual teachers), we should trust them completely, that as all gurus are 'empty' in nature, all the good and bad qualities we perceive of them are merely our projections. This idea is wrong on many levels. Because we are not enlightened, the teacher we choose might be unenlightened as well. Thus, if we totally entrust our spirituality to them without question, it could be dangerous. (Even recent history shows that there are gurus assumed to be 'great' who turn out to have great misgivings.) Yet, we have to choose who is worth learning from with the best of our limited wisdom – which we should continually strive to increase. Blind faith in any teacher or teaching is a big no-no, for it is the nemesis of discerning wisdom. True spiritual devotion is towards the perfect wisdom that teachers dispense; not to their imperfect personalities. If any teacher demands the latter, he or she would surely be a faulty self-centred teacher; and not a Dharma-centred one.
If everything about teachers is projected from the side of the students, this would mean that the teachers would be exactly the same as each student in every way! Of course, this is never the case. If all teachers are not different from their students, the teachers ought to be done away with, for every student might as well simply take their reflections in the mirror to be their own teachers! It is exactly because teachers are supposedly superior in compassion and wisdom that students learn from them. However, the ways teachers are perceived are indeed to some extent dependent on their students' perceptions. But if they are willing to learn, they learn to be open-minded, by clarifying doubts and clearing bias instead of just stubbornly hanging on to them. When students stop intelligent enquiry though, blind faith in their teachers starts seeping in. They might even aggressively rationalise their teacher's faults to others.
Some even use faulty teachings learnt to defend sound criticisms about their teachers, claiming the critics to be biased, when they are the ones who are. Some say that their teachers being criticised only reflects that all teachers, like everything else, are of 'emptiness'. This is a severely deluded perspective. If everything is of 'emptiness', does it mean that anything goes when it comes to conduct and teachings? Why learn anything from any specific teacher then? Some erroneously claim that as their teachers are 'empty', if they are seen as erroneous, it is due to erroneous personal perceptions. Surely, when teachers break the precepts, it does not mean that their misconduct is their students' fault. Sometimes, poor teachers might turn out to have good students, who have better conduct than them! Seeing anyone as 'empty' does not absolve that person's misdeeds or dissolve the possible harms of such mistakes. [continue here]
May all faulty teachers swiftly awaken to their mistakes.
May all faulty students swiftly awaken to their mistakes.
May all swiftly awaken one another to one another's mistakes.
0
Comments
Namaste.
@andyrobyn I think it's kind of sad and speaks to the human condition, and perhaps to the conditions in which some children are raised at home, that people even need to be told not to trust anyone immediately. Think about it: how much sense does it make to place all your trust, including in some cases, your physical integrity, in the hands of a complete stranger? Just because he or she is wearing robes of some sort.
The guru has to be open about what he/she is doing.
Students need to be open about what is going on.
No secrecy.
Split functions. The spiritual teacher is not the person who decides where the money goes. He is not keeping the books and he is not signing the deals.
Don’t get isolated. Find points of reference outside the group. Be part of the bigger community.
Don’t lose touch with family and friends. When you find you can not be open to them about what’s going on in your sangha, something is wrong with your sangha, not with your family and friends…
That sort of thing is what we have to keep in mind.
I wish this kind of talk was completely academic, but it isn’t.
_/\_
“When a head has been shaved, little creeping insects like lice can’t take up residence there. In the same way, when a mind has gained release from its preoccupations and is freed from fabrication, suffering can’t take up residence at all. When this becomes your normal state, you can be called a genuine monk.”
- Ajahn Dune Atulo
And that goes for all of us, I guess - without exception.
Namaste.
An organization needs to be PREPARED for staff-members who are going to steal and abuse their position.
A sangha needs to be PREPARED for a teacher who is going to try to abuse his power.
The organization must be equipped for the worst case scenario.
In the same way lawyers point out that when you get married - even though it is the last thing you want to think about – you have to make the proper arrangements for the case of divorce.
It may be difficult to discuss divorce even before you get married, but it is much better to face this real possibility before it happens.
IMO.
_/\_
I meant no disrespect towards psychiatrists but personally, I doubt that the peace of mind and full transformation/liberation that can occur through Dhamma practice is equivalent to the mind of a psychiatrist or psychologist.
I do not wish to elaborate too much, and mean no offence by my comments.
My response though was regarding the don't trust anyone including yourself comment.
This is far from my experience.
Dogen once said:
'To study Buddhism is to study the self
To study the self is to forget the self
To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand Dhammas' etc
Thence, forgetting the self and yet living clearly is just one of the first steps of Dhammic practice, it is far beyong issues of trust and distrust then - my understanding of it is it then can embrace life and love fully, it is a heart of peace, insight, clarity and ultimately, joy perhaps.
Just my 2 pence, please ignore at will.
Best wishes,
Abu
Horses for courses, I say ... psychiatry and Buddhist practice, whichever tradition, have a very different focus and aim - superficially they may seem very similar, and I do not think they are non-complimentary in any way.