Lay Teachers vs Monastic Teachers

BhikkhuJayasara

So I wanted to bring up a topic because of my own qualms about it. That is the difference between a lay dhamma teacher and a monastic as a dhamma teacher. Coming from Theravada there are very very few lay dhamma teachers where as in the Mahayana and Tibetan there seems to be many and lay people seem to be more "accepted" as dhamma teachers.

I personally see this feeling in myself of " oh he is a lay person " so I kind of judge this person and don't put forth much effort to listen to a lay person as opposed to a monastic. I have very high respect for monastics in this way.

The irony of the situation is that I technically AM a theravadan lay teacher.. which I think is why I very much minimize the small role I do have and I always make sure to tell people "I'm not a monk or a master or a guru". The teaching thing just sort of happened and I had thoughts about the validity and the "rightness" of it until i was set straight by both a theravadan monk(Ven Yuttadhammo) and a zen lay reverend whom I brought my concerns to. They taught me that all people, even monastics, can learn dhamma from everyone of every age.

I still have that bias though.. and I'm trying to work on it.. even the buddha says that a robe and a shaved head do not make a bhikkhu. I even read a book recently " The Buddha goes into a bar" by a lay Lodro. It's a process..

so what is everyones feelings and thoughts regarding learning from monks and lay teachers.

DaftChris

If one has wisdom and compassion to share, does it truly matter if one is a monk or not?

Deepankar

I see. This is quite paradoxical to provide an awesomic and satisfying answer in view of the nature of its complexity in non dualism. The term buddha has 3 defnition in its same truth and in the dualistic explanatorical term is such...buddha is defined as self enlightenment, second, enlightenment others and third the supreme enlightenment in its wholesomeness. It is much easier in monastic order to enter such supremeness and not easy for monastic order to supreme other in the intellectual and/or mundane society level. In this regard, the laybuddhist played a very essential role in developing the supremeness quality into the mundane society. Otherwise, the monastic order will only maintain their hoslisticity and supremeness like the buddha enlightened under the fig tree, and without request for tesching, buddha just enter nibbananess. So the society will suffer even more igorantly. For instance, if there is no teacher in the society to teach the child, they cant enjoy intellectual reasoning and make a healthy living of sort

Jason

I have teachers that are both lay and monastic, although I do tend to prefer monastics because they've dedicated their lives 100% to the practice (theoretically, at least) and I'm drawn to the monastic life myself. That said, the only real difference I've noticed between the two is that some monastics seem to have more knowledge and experience due to their having more time to study and practice, but that's to be expected, I think. On the whole, though, I've found lay teachers to be just as competent and helpful.

Glow

I actually tend to prefer lay teachers because they usually talk more about integrating practice into worldly life: work, family, relationships, etc. That is what my own practice is aimed at, and so I find what they say more usable. Many modern monastics (in the West as well as the East) don't live all too differently from lay teachers, actually, especially if they spend a good amount of their time teaching or engaging with the laity.

footiam

Jayantha said:

So I wanted to bring up a topic because of my own qualms about it. That is the difference between a lay dhamma teacher and a monastic as a dhamma teacher. Coming from Theravada there are very very few lay dhamma teachers where as in the Mahayana and Tibetan there seems to be many and lay people seem to be more "accepted" as dhamma teachers.

I personally see this feeling in myself of " oh he is a lay person " so I kind of judge this person and don't put forth much effort to listen to a lay person as opposed to a monastic. I have very high respect for monastics in this way.

The irony of the situation is that I technically AM a theravadan lay teacher.. which I think is why I very much minimize the small role I do have and I always make sure to tell people "I'm not a monk or a master or a guru". The teaching thing just sort of happened and I had thoughts about the validity and the "rightness" of it until i was set straight by both a theravadan monk(Ven Yuttadhammo) and a zen lay reverend whom I brought my concerns to. They taught me that all people, even monastics, can learn dhamma from everyone of every age.

I still have that bias though.. and I'm trying to work on it.. even the buddha says that a robe and a shaved head do not make a bhikkhu. I even read a book recently " The Buddha goes into a bar" by a lay Lodro. It's a process..

so what is everyones feelings and thoughts regarding learning from monks and lay teachers.

Well, since Buddha said not everyone with a robe and a shaved head is a Bhikkhu, it could well mean that the one with a robe and hair on his head could well be a Bhikkhu or even a Buddha. Let us then place our greatest respect on others, even little animals without clothes.

Jeffrey

Some lay teachers such as my teacher have dedicated their lives to the dharma, they just are lay. She was previously a nun. 'Lama' means that you have done a 3 year retreat and if you have a sangha to look after that (should) is (be) a full time job.

genkaku

@Jayantha -- "Teachers" are available where distinctions are still in force. I see no reason to pretend I haven't had or don't continue to make distinctions. Buddhism is sometimes interpreted as tut-tutting about "making distinctions," but that interpretation is, in itself, a distinction.

So ... OK. When a guy or gal in robes is what bangs your chimes, use that. When a guy or gal in blue jeans bangs your chimes, use that.

My own sense is that a continued practice will automatically whittle away the energy it takes to distinguish teachers and whoever it is who is not a teacher. And this is not some airy-fairy, goody-two-shoes, egalitarian pipe dream ... it just takes too much energy for too little result... it just doesn't square up with the facts.

Just keep up a good and determined practice and see what happens.

Zero

A teacher brings opportunities to learn - without the ability to learn, a teacher has no function - in this sense, the source of the stimulus to learn is largely irrelevant.

sukhita

Jayantha said:

........... so what is everyones feelings and thoughts regarding learning from monks and lay teachers.

Perhaps, more important than a dharma teacher being from the laity or monastic order is that the dharma teacher should have realised some level of "awakening" with regard to the 4NT.....or else it may turn out to be a case of the blind leading the blind. Of course, dharma "friends", like those on this forum, can be helpful to some extent. But, I wouldn,t know all that much because I don't have access to a dharma teacher.

BhikkhuJayasara

sukhita said:

Jayantha said:

........... so what is everyones feelings and thoughts regarding learning from monks and lay teachers.

Perhaps, more important than a dharma teacher being from the laity or monastic order is that the dharma teacher should have realised some level of "awakening" with regard to the 4NT.....or else it may turn out to be a case of the blind leading the blind. Of course, dharma "friends", like those on this forum, can be helpful to some extent. But, I wouldn,t know all that much because I don't have access to a dharma teacher.

Do you mean like a sotapanna? If so then there would not be many teachers in the world.

sukhita

Jayantha said:

Do you mean like a sotapanna? If so then there would not be many teachers in the world.

Yes, that's what I also think...

lobster

Lay teachers have never helped me get laid and monastics tend to be even more celibate . . .
I tend to talk to a variety of practitioners and ask their advice. Anyone teaching and not enlightened is in need of 'Mr Cushion' . . . the only teacher needed . . . :wave:

Vastmind

If the person I learn something from isn't
a bonafied/official teacher...well then...
I guess it's called fellowshipping.
Isn't that for learning purposes as well?

Good for you for seeing your own judgements.
What are you doing to work on the bias?

Deepankar

The basic principle of approach for buddhists based on Bodhisattva Samantabhadra's Ten Great Vows - the first two is essential amongst buddhists,
1. Pay homage and respect to all of the Buddhas.
2. Praise all of the Buddhas.

http://cubuddhism.pbworks.com/w/page/24940115/Samantabhadra

Samantabdhadra Mantra

adaṇḍe daṇḍapati daṇḍa-āvartani daṇḍa-kuśale daṇḍa-sudhāri

sudhārapati buddhapaśyane sarvadhāraṇi

āvartani saṁvartani saṅgha-parīkṣite saṅgha-nirghātani

dharma-parīkṣite sarva-sattva ruta kauśalya-anugate

siṁha-vikrīḍite anuvarte vartani vartāli svāhā

zombiegirl

Glow said:

I actually tend to prefer lay teachers because they usually talk more about integrating practice into worldly life: work, family, relationships, etc. That is what my own practice is aimed at, and so I find what they say more usable.

^^This. I was actually thinking of Ajahn Brahm, who said in one of his dharma talks something to the effect of, 'I don't get why people always come to me with relationship problems... What do I know about it? I'm a celibate monk!'

BhikkhuJayasara

zombiegirl said:

Glow said:

I actually tend to prefer lay teachers because they usually talk more about integrating practice into worldly life: work, family, relationships, etc. That is what my own practice is aimed at, and so I find what they say more usable.

^^This. I was actually thinking of Ajahn Brahm, who said in one of his dharma talks something to the effect of, 'I don't get why people always come to me with relationship problems... What do I know about it? I'm a celibate monk!'

lol.. Catholic Priests give marriage counseling :P

Brahm always says that and then he always gives great advice about how to deal with the problems :P. Ajahn Brahm knows a lot about human interactions and relationships because he sees deeply how the mind works.

zombiegirl

Jayantha said:

zombiegirl said:

Glow said:

I actually tend to prefer lay teachers because they usually talk more about integrating practice into worldly life: work, family, relationships, etc. That is what my own practice is aimed at, and so I find what they say more usable.

^^This. I was actually thinking of Ajahn Brahm, who said in one of his dharma talks something to the effect of, 'I don't get why people always come to me with relationship problems... What do I know about it? I'm a celibate monk!'

lol.. Catholic Priests give marriage counseling :P

Brahm always says that and then he always gives great advice about how to deal with the problems :P. Ajahn Brahm knows a lot about human interactions and relationships because he sees deeply how the mind works.

Lol, I feel exactly the same about Catholic priests giving marriage counseling. You can't find everything in the Bible...

Of course he would answer anyways, he was asked, after all. And I'm not saying that his advice isn't good (or advice from any monk, for that matter), I just appreciate that he acknowledges his shortcomings. If you've ever read "Anger" by TNH, he speaks at length about relationships and loving and respecting each other, but to me personally, it did fall somehow flat. It comes across as one of those things that sounds so much easier than it really is. Sometimes people need a more in depth explanation and experience might be needed to back them.

For me personally, I, of course, respect all teachers regardless. All I'm saying is that I don't foresee myself becoming a monk and sometimes there can be a little extra wisdom from a person living the lay life that I want for myself. If you're talking about Buddhism in general, the teachers are theoretically equal, but if you're talking about how to fit Buddhism into a lay lifestyle, I would think that the teacher with personal experience might be more helpful (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

BhikkhuJayasara

zombiegirl said:

Jayantha said:

zombiegirl said:

Glow said:

I actually tend to prefer lay teachers because they usually talk more about integrating practice into worldly life: work, family, relationships, etc. That is what my own practice is aimed at, and so I find what they say more usable.

^^This. I was actually thinking of Ajahn Brahm, who said in one of his dharma talks something to the effect of, 'I don't get why people always come to me with relationship problems... What do I know about it? I'm a celibate monk!'

lol.. Catholic Priests give marriage counseling :P

Brahm always says that and then he always gives great advice about how to deal with the problems :P. Ajahn Brahm knows a lot about human interactions and relationships because he sees deeply how the mind works.

Lol, I feel exactly the same about Catholic priests giving marriage counseling. You can't find everything in the Bible...

Of course he would answer anyways, he was asked, after all. And I'm not saying that his advice isn't good (or advice from any monk, for that matter), I just appreciate that he acknowledges his shortcomings. If you've ever read "Anger" by TNH, he speaks at length about relationships and loving and respecting each other, but to me personally, it did fall somehow flat. It comes across as one of those things that sounds so much easier than it really is. Sometimes people need a more in depth explanation and experience might be needed to back them.

For me personally, I, of course, respect all teachers regardless. All I'm saying is that I don't foresee myself becoming a monk and sometimes there can be a little extra wisdom from a person living the lay life that I want for myself. If you're talking about Buddhism in general, the teachers are theoretically equal, but if you're talking about how to fit Buddhism into a lay lifestyle, I would think that the teacher with personal experience might be more helpful (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

I actually agree for the most part but I think the distinction comes from how much lay life experience the monastic had before renouncing.

There are some monks who know nothing but monastic life from age 12 and those like perhaps me in the near future who has seen more experiences in his 34 years then most. So lay life experience is important but I'm not so sure a lay life is really all THAT much different at its core then any other human life experience.

HookahCaterpillar

From what i have experienced it seems like it depends on the student's direction/need at that time. I sometimes suspect i'm not connecting with lay teachers because i am not interested in a householder's life + buddhism, but buddhism more essentially.

but heres a question - how do you even find guidance from a monk or nun in north america? i feel like you'd have to travel to asia for that experience...

BhikkhuJayasara

HookahCaterpillar said:

From what i have experienced it seems like it depends on the student's direction/need at that time. I sometimes suspect i'm not connecting with lay teachers because i am not interested in a householder's life + buddhism, but buddhism more essentially.

but heres a question - how do you even find guidance from a monk or nun in north america? i feel like you'd have to travel to asia for that experience...

why do you feel that way? They are definitely out there, although of course more spread out and rare being that Buddhism is less then 1% of the population in NA.

HookahCaterpillar

i dont know i just have never heard of a fully functioning buddhism monastery in NA. i thought there were some hybrids (e.g. some with full time 'residents' but also open to the public full time for retreats etc). Thought that was the extent of it ...

BhikkhuJayasara

HookahCaterpillar said:

i dont know i just have never heard of a fully functioning buddhism monastery in NA. i thought there were some hybrids (e.g. some with full time 'residents' but also open to the public full time for retreats etc). Thought that was the extent of it ...

what do you consider a " fully functioning monastery" ? I know of at least 4-5(theravada and mahayana) off the top of my head within 300 miles of me here in NJ. Of course the place I go to mostly is Bhavana Society in WV , 5 hours away from me. BS was the first theravadan forest monastery in the USA created some 30 years ago by Bhante G.

check out the world buddhist directory for the closest to you - http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

HookahCaterpillar

by fully functioning i mean something that functions in itself- like something in Tibet i guess. more closed to the public and self sustaining then what ive seen here.

BhikkhuJayasara

HookahCaterpillar said:

by fully functioning i mean something that functions in itself- like something in Tibet i guess. more closed to the public and self sustaining then what ive seen here.

since when are Buddhist monks supposed to be self sustaining and closed to the public? that is the total opposite of what buddhist monks and a monastery is supposed to be.

ningjing1977

I guess its the sameas every other thing in life, is my teacher real or am i being fed bull sh*t , the danger is, if your new youprob wont know until lotsof time has been wasted, same in being taught anything, you need a good teacherto guide you,ifyou have a crapteacher, you may end up confussed and mislead and feela bit let down and cheated, but if your new, you might not know.