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.
Following on from your logic all you really need to do is trust in the path
this is exactly where I'm at... I trust in the path, I trust that insight will come on it's own accord over time and all I need to do is continue to practice. When I feel negative mind states come upon me like " omg I havent had an insight in ages" or " why am I even bothering with this" .. I am able to remind myself that all I need concern myself with is the practice, everything else will happen on it's own.
myself even 10 years ago would think " yeah sure" with a snicker haha, but I am quite different then I was, aren't we all?
@anatman I think the danger is to take refuge in the monkey mind. Once you follow the triple jewels to the fulfillment then the mind has merged with dharmakaya which is the wisdom embodiment of Buddha.
But until then we are responsible hence the quote in the dhammapada. I love that quote because it points out that there is a self. And that self is not a self as we ordinarily in a monkey mind way. Rather that self is the essence of emptiness. Nothing to grasp. Nothing else needed.
Most, or at least many western buddhists are in the same boat, myself included.
Not in my experience. Most western Buddhists are involved in local Buddhist groups. IMO Buddhists involved in forums are a small and unrepresentative subset.
Most, or at least many western buddhists are in the same boat, myself included.
Not in my experience. Most western Buddhists are involved in local Buddhist groups. IMO Buddhists involved in forums are a small and unrepresentative subset.
Is that right? view the video I posted above for insight into how teachers view members of their sangha…
Whether your in a local buddhist group or on an online forum (look at how many of them are out their and how many of those that are posting also attend buddhist centres for teaching and have gurus.
Either way they are human, and experience suffering and are looking for ways to alleviate that suffering. Its another method of enquiry, and occasional banter - feeling like they are part of a wider community striving for the same goal.
Unrepresentative - what a load of Tosh - sorry @Tosh for taking your name in vain!
@anataman So this Tsem Rinpoche guy, you think this scolding and shaming he gave the group of seekers in front of him did anything but make them want to find another teacher?
These types of videos can be misleading, because they're not in context. If this is a small advanced group engaged in, say, the fifth day of a week long retreat, then the Teacher might judge them ready for some tough love and be right.
Here's another problem with saying Buddhists have to find an official, sanctioned teacher. A bad Teacher is worse than none at all because the student's nature is to latch onto the first one we find and consider it the student's fault if the relationship isn't conductive to learning. And almost never is the Teacher wise enough to know when he is the problem and not the student.
@anataman So this Tsem Rinpoche guy, you think this scolding and shaming he gave the group of seekers in front of him did anything but make them want to find another teacher?
These types of videos can be misleading, because they're not in context. If this is a small advanced group engaged in, say, the fifth day of a week long retreat, then the Teacher might judge them ready for some tough love and be right.
Here's another problem with saying Buddhists have to find an official, sanctioned teacher. A bad Teacher is worse than none at all because the student's nature is to latch onto the first one we find and consider it the student's fault if the relationship isn't conductive to learning. And almost never is the Teacher wise enough to know when he is the problem and not the student.
This guy is hilarious, I've seen a video with him before. I think he has a good message about what is important in the practice, I also think that his teaching style is not for the easily offended or faint of heart LOL.
as for the debate about the majority of buddhists having a local group or not. I suppose that really depends on where you live. I would agree that most western buddhists who live in a city probably have a local group. But I live within an hour and a half of two of the most populous cities in the country, and where I live is a dhamma desert.
@anataman So this Tsem Rinpoche guy, you think this scolding and shaming he gave the group of seekers in front of him did anything but make them want to find another teacher?
These types of videos can be misleading, because they're not in context. If this is a small advanced group engaged in, say, the fifth day of a week long retreat, then the Teacher might judge them ready for some tough love and be right.
Here's another problem with saying Buddhists have to find an official, sanctioned teacher. A bad Teacher is worse than none at all because the student's nature is to latch onto the first one we find and consider it the student's fault if the relationship isn't conductive to learning. And almost never is the Teacher wise enough to know when he is the problem and not the student.
@Cinorjer - Sometimes the student needs to be told bluntly about their obstructions. Isn't that the point of finding a teacher - you want your faults pointed out so you can overcome them. Hopefully there is something you see in your teacher that you can know as wisdom, and feel confident in him or her.
Most, or at least many western buddhists are in the same boat, myself included.
Not in my experience. Most western Buddhists are involved in local Buddhist groups. IMO Buddhists involved in forums are a small and unrepresentative subset.
I believe you're right.
I would especially agree with your suggestion that Virtual Buddhists are unrepresentative of the larger sanghas. Virtual Buddhists and their "communities" are not like real-world Buddhists, at all.
If size matters, a look at the numbers. The CIA estimates indicate roughly 2 million Buddhists in the US (numbers vary across studies - CIA numbers are among the lowest). If this board has 100 regular users and lurkers (a generous estimate I think) that makes for a statistically insignificant numer. Overall I doubt that forums for Buddhists, have more than 1000 regular users in total. Still, a pretty slim slice. Just on the numbers alone, forums for Buddhists online can't be particularly representative. Impossible, actually.
Not in my experience. Most western Buddhists are involved in local Buddhist groups. IMO Buddhists involved in forums are a small and unrepresentative subset.
I believe you're right.
I would especially agree with your suggestion that Virtual Buddhists are unrepresentative of the larger sanghas. Virtual Buddhists and their "communities" are not like real-world Buddhists, at all.
Some time ago I did a survey of numbers attending Buddhist groups in my nearest UK city. I estimated about 200 regular attenders in total, and over half of these were going to FWBO/Triratna ( the high numbers there might be partly explained by the fact that they're the only group with premises, all the other groups hire rooms or meet in peoples houses ). The next biggest group numerically was NKT, though much smaller with 10-15 regulars. All the other groups had low numbers, maybe 4 or 5 people attending regularly these included 2 other Tibetan, 3 Zen and 1 Theravada. I've been involved with most of these groups over a long period of time, and as far as I know very few of these people are involved in online forums.
Most Buddhists around here attend either Shambhala or NKT centers. Lots of small groups, too. The predominance of Shambhala and NKT can be attributed to aggressive marketing on NKT's part and long standing on the part of Shambhala. Both are very organized and focused.
I find a completely different dynamic, too. They don't spend time arguing subtle points of dharma or go heading off in inappropriate directions. They tend to look to their teachers for guidance and trust in it.
As you observe, VERY few, if any participate in online forums. Some teachers frown on it as idle chatter.
Most, or at least many western buddhists are in the same boat, myself included.
Not in my experience. Most western Buddhists are involved in local Buddhist groups. IMO Buddhists involved in forums are a small and unrepresentative subset.
I believe you're right.
I would especially agree with your suggestion that Virtual Buddhists are unrepresentative of the larger sanghas. Virtual Buddhists and their "communities" are not like real-world Buddhists, at all.
If size matters, a look at the numbers. The CIA estimates indicate roughly 2 million Buddhists in the US (numbers vary across studies - CIA numbers are among the lowest). If this board has 100 regular users and lurkers (a generous estimate I think) that makes for a statistically insignificant numer. Overall I doubt that forums for Buddhists, have more than 1000 regular users in total. Still, a pretty slim slice. Just on the numbers alone, forums for Buddhists online can't be particularly representative. Impossible, actually.
Not in my experience. Most western Buddhists are involved in local Buddhist groups. IMO Buddhists involved in forums are a small and unrepresentative subset.
I believe you're right.
I would especially agree with your suggestion that Virtual Buddhists are unrepresentative of the larger sanghas. Virtual Buddhists and their "communities" are not like real-world Buddhists, at all.
Some time ago I did a survey of numbers attending Buddhist groups in my nearest UK city. I estimated about 200 regular attenders in total, and over half of these were going to FWBO/Triratna ( the high numbers there might be partly explained by the fact that they're the only group with premises, all the other groups hire rooms or meet in peoples houses ). The next biggest group numerically was NKT, though much smaller with 10-15 regulars. All the other groups had low numbers, maybe 4 or 5 people attending regularly these included 2 other Tibetan, 3 Zen and 1 Theravada. I've been involved with most of these groups over a long period of time, and as far as I know very few of these people are involved in online forums.
My original statement that lead to this was not that most people identifying as Buddhist are on Internet forums, simply that they do not have a sangha they have daily interactions with. There are a variety of factors to that including whether you are in a city or not. Obviously people in a city are much more likely to have a sangha available close by. Where as those outside of one like myself will most likely be in a sangha desert.
Also i forget that we live in different countries where the factors may be different.
Monastic Sanghas are usually created due to a a population from over seas living there, or else there would be no need or ability for the monks to be there. Lay teacher sanghas don't have to be connected that way.
I disagree with both of you. I understand that my comments may have unsettled you both, and your commitment to a teacher and sangha is necessary for you to go through your dharma gates, but where did you get those figures from - pure speculation! Now stop wandering off and get back to the OP - do you 'need' a teacher?
I disagree with both of you. I understand that my comments may have unsettled you both,
Don't flatter yourself ;-).
and your commitment to a teacher and sangha is necessary for you to go through your dharma gates, but where did you get those figures from - pure speculation!
Hardly! And here's some more ...
The old eSangha site had something like 28000 registered users when it was shut down. Less than 500 contributed regularly. I don't think all the extant Buddhist boards together top that number. If you take the higher number against the CIA's 2,000,000 figure. you get roughly 1.5%. That's not insignificant, but it's hardly representative, statistically speaking.
Now stop wandering off and get back to the OP - do you 'need' a teacher?
We all do. Even you. If you don't live near one, you can always travel. In the 11th century (CE) Marpa taveled From Tibet to India, and back, twice, to work with his Guru, Naraopa. He didn't have planes, trains, cars or any other mechanized transport. He walked, or rode a pony, or both.
What's your excuse?
You don't have to be in your teacher's presence 24/7. I haven't seen my Guru for years and I make it to Boulder to practice with my sangha only once a month. Some people are so devoted as to move to where their Guru is. Some are able to remain in areas seperate from the Guru. It makes no difference where you and the teacher are, but the teacher is more than just helpful. The Guru is a blessing.
@anataman So this Tsem Rinpoche guy, you think this scolding and shaming he gave the group of seekers in front of him did anything but make them want to find another teacher?
These types of videos can be misleading, because they're not in context. If this is a small advanced group engaged in, say, the fifth day of a week long retreat, then the Teacher might judge them ready for some tough love and be right.
Here's another problem with saying Buddhists have to find an official, sanctioned teacher. A bad Teacher is worse than none at all because the student's nature is to latch onto the first one we find and consider it the student's fault if the relationship isn't conductive to learning. And almost never is the Teacher wise enough to know when he is the problem and not the student.
It's so important to take some time to scope out the teacher, give him/her time to prove himself/herself, and not hand over your trust just because he comes from a highly-respected lineage, or because someone said he's cool, or because it's the only sangha near you. Use your power of discernment.
On another note, Tsem has some great talks. But he can also be pedantic and condescending. But maybe that's because of the students he has, idk. Maybe he's tailoring his talk to his particular audience.
Not everyone feels the need to contribute on these forums - some are gleaners, or grazers, and can investigate and learn from the discussions that are had @Chaz. Maybe one day they will feel comfortable to enter the stream and have fruitful discussions that can go on to help others. It takes a lot to state things sometimes.
BTW - it's a bold statement but not everyone needs a teacher. Gautama taught us that!
Over many years I have found that from time to time a qualified teacher may help us understand the subtle nature of Buddha-Dhamma that may very well not always be clear.
Thats my idea of the role of a teacher @grackle. Someone walks the path, becomes learned in their subject and helps people to help themselves… Quid Pro Quo
It's so important to take some time to scope out the teacher, give him/her time to prove himself/herself, and not hand over your trust just because he comes from a highly-respected lineage, or because someone said he's cool, or because it's the only sangha near you. Use your power of discernment.
Absolutely.
You really need to be circumspect about a teacher. Paltrul Rinpoche outlined a process of selecting a teacher that, if followed, would take over 10 years. And that's not a bad idea.
It's a process that involves not just evaluating the teacher's qualifications and other such mundane matters, but also to determine if there's any sort of karmic connection. On the other hand, sometimes you just know.
I disagree with both of you. I understand that my comments may have unsettled you both, and your commitment to a teacher and sangha is necessary for you to go through your dharma gates, but where did you get those figures from - pure speculation! Now stop wandering off and get back to the OP - do you 'need' a teacher?
The point about the figures is that they demonstrate that most western Buddhists are involved in established traditions and groups, and therefore have a teacher - so there is a small minority of people without a teacher. What I still don't get is why people would want to do without a teacher?
The heavy emphasis on a Teacher or Master in Buddhism is simply following the model of "apprentice-master" type relationship that was the norm for most of history. It's not the same as the "student-teacher" relationship and follows different rules.
There is nothing sacred about either relationship, but in particular the apprentice one assumes one master and a limited number of apprentices and a long relationship of many years. This relationship was as much an ingrained part of society as the family unit. People who grew up with this way of learning a career (and being a monk was a career) knew many of these masters could be abusive and many apprentices were lacking in motivation, but the master was expected to control just about every part of the apprentice's life and expected loyalty in return. An apprentice that was lazy or did not learn meant the master was shamed when people judged the apprentice did not learn enough. As long as the apprentice learned enough to please the master, it was good. Sometimes the relationship soured to the point where either the apprentice was kicked out or the poor guy ran off to find another master. The old stories of the monks and masters involve this type of relationship.
The point is, rarely did the apprentice have a choice of masters and rarely did the apprentice get to go find another one if he was unsatisfied.
Today, we have moved to a "student-teacher" dynamic. A student in a school will have many teachers, can switch schools even, and the teacher is not responsible for how the student turned out because he's a teacher, not a master. He can't lock the student in his room and demand he study.
So in Buddhism, teachers are necessary. But is a master necessary, that personal guru with the one-on-one relationship where the master has authority over your life? Heck, in today's world, we seem to be moving to teachers once removed over the internet and you can "earn a degree from home" if you want.
In Kwan Um Zen, we make a lot of fuss about the "don't know mind" otherwise known as beginner's mind or student's mind. That's the necessary ingredient for the Buddhist wanting to advance in their practice. I suppose if you have that, there are plenty of places on the internet that can be your teacher.
Exactly, @spinyNorman - we also learn that when he found he could learn no more from them he moved on… And became master of himself.
I do this on this forum and elsewhere. Gleaning knowledge and wisdom from you all. Sharing it if I think it may be helpful. Having fun along the way to being and achieving nothing more than master of myself, freeing myself from delusion and realising the truth of cessation of suffering, and praying everyone else does too! Don't always get it right, but then who does?
@Cinorjer One of the BEST POSTS EVER on this topic! :clap:
Too bad it missed the mark ...
here:
But is a master necessary, that personal guru with the one-on-one relationship where the master has authority over your life?
The "master" in my experience isn't that way at all.
A "Guru" having "authority over your life"? Who's that?
My Guru has no more authority over my life than I choose to give him. I still call the shots, and technically I can walk away any time I want. I risk is karma and blessing, but it's still mine to do with as I please. Even such classic stories such as Marpa and Milarepa show that Mila could have left Marpa at any time. He chose to stay. I don't know anyone who has the kind of relationship @Cinorjer describes. It seems like a straw man to me.
@Cinorjer One of the BEST POSTS EVER on this topic! :clap:
Too bad it missed the mark ...
here:
But is a master necessary, that personal guru with the one-on-one relationship where the master has authority over your life?
The "master" in my experience isn't that way at all.
A "Guru" having "authority over your life"? Who's that?
My Guru has no more authority over my life than I choose to give him. I still call the shots, and technically I can walk away any time I want. I risk is karma and blessing, but it's still mine to do with as I please. Even such classic stories such as Marpa and Milarepa show that Mila could have left Marpa at any time. He chose to stay. I don't know anyone who has the kind of relationship @Cinorjer describes. It seems like a straw man to me.
But of course the guru-disciple relationship or master-apprentice is one where the guru has authority. He has the ultimate authority to provide the keys to enlightenment. That's what Dharma Transmission is all about. The disciple has to trust the master, of course. Misplaced trust can lead to terrible abuses. Look at the sad times we know this has happened in the recent past and tell me the guru didn't have authority over the student. The ultimate authority is to demand the worshipful trust from the disciple and get it.
And certainly in many cases, especially now, the disciple can leave and find a different master. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying there is something wrong with this relationship. I'm just saying don't confuse the master-disciple with the teacher-student relationship.
Another translation of guru is 'spiritual friend'. They are the best friend if they have wisdom/learning and (some) relief from emotional smears (three poisons). They are the best friend because they are reliable. The dharma is reliable.
The Jewel Ornament of Liberation describes the qualities a guru should happen. Some of them possess different amounts of the qualities and the student needs to find a guru to their level; well that makes sense.
The "master" in my experience isn't that way at all.
A "Guru" having "authority over your life"? Who's that?
My Guru has no more authority over my life than I choose to give him. I still call the shots, and technically I can walk away any time I want. I risk is karma and blessing, but it's still mine to do with as I please. Even such classic stories such as Marpa and Milarepa show that Mila could have left Marpa at any time. He chose to stay. I don't know anyone who has the kind of relationship @Cinorjer describes. It seems like a straw man to me.
Traditionally, in the old days, the guru did have authority over the student's life. That's still true to some degree in Highest Yoga Tantra, where the student is expected to accept the guru as the Buddha himself, and turn over total trust to the guru. That's the type of relationship Cinorjer is describing, vs. the student-teacher relationship that's more typical at lower levels of Buddhist study.
@Cinorjer One of the BEST POSTS EVER on this topic! :clap:
Too bad it missed the mark ...
here:
But is a master necessary, that personal guru with the one-on-one relationship where the master has authority over your life?
The "master" in my experience isn't that way at all.
A "Guru" having "authority over your life"? Who's that?
My Guru has no more authority over my life than I choose to give him. I still call the shots, and technically I can walk away any time I want. I risk is karma and blessing, but it's still mine to do with as I please. Even such classic stories such as Marpa and Milarepa show that Mila could have left Marpa at any time. He chose to stay. I don't know anyone who has the kind of relationship @Cinorjer describes. It seems like a straw man to me.
But of course the guru-disciple relationship or master-apprentice is one where the guru has authority. He has the ultimate authority to provide the keys to enlightenment. That's what Dharma Transmission is all about.
But that's not the same as authority over my life which is what I was objecting to.
As far as what you cite above goes. It's it authority or compassion. If it's authority, then why do I still have a choice. My Guru can dictate a practice, but it's up to me whether I'll do it or not
The disciple has to trust the master, of course. Misplaced trust can lead to terrible abuses.
Yes and it's the student that misplaces the trust, not the so-called "guru". If you misplace your trust, if you ignore the advice of generations of great lamas to teach circumspection, is that the "guru's" fault?
Look at the sad times we know this has happened in the recent past and tell me the guru didn't have authority over the student.
Give me a specific case, please? I guru can't have what I don't give to him. It's all up to me.
The ultimate authority is to demand the worshipful trust from the disciple and get it.
The ultimate case of being obsequious, perhaps.
The guru cannot take what isn't given. If you do whatever the Guru says - like jump off a bridge and you do it, that your deaal not the Guru's. He might not be cool requiring you to do it, but you're still the dummy that jumped.
Just because your a Buddhist, doesn't mean you have no personal responsibility in how your path goes.
And certainly in many cases, especially now, the disciple can leave and find a different master.
Now? What's that supposed to mean? Milarepa could have left Marpa at any time. No one was holding the proverbial gun to his head. Mila did, in fact, leave for another teacher, but the teacher told him to go back to Marpa. Mila did what he was instructed to do, but again he didn't have to. That was 1000 years ago. If you're thinking that people today have more freedom of will than they did 1000 years ago, that just hubris. You're always free, until you relinquish your freedom.
Traditionally, in the old days, the guru did have authority over the student's life. That's still true to some degree in Highest Yoga Tantra, where the student is expected to accept the guru as the Buddha himself, and turn over total trust to the guru. That's the type of relationship Cinorjer is describing, vs. the student-teacher relationship that's more typical at lower levels of Buddhist study.
I once worked for an archaeologist who told me that tradition is just tradition and should never be confused with facts.
That said, there there are centuries-old teachings about the how the student views the Guru. Those teachings (and I believe they can be found in Words of My Perfect Teacher) say that if you view your Guru as a fully enlightened Buddha then you can expect the blessing of a fully enlightened being. If you view your teacher as a lesser being you will get those kinds of blessing. NOWHERE does it say you HAVE to view the Guru as anything. In fact, view isn't something you can choose. View is something you either have or don't have. It isn't something you can manufacture.
Would you surrender your total trust to a Buddha if you knew beyond any shadow of doubt that he's a Buddha? Can you believe anything beyond shadow of doubt?
In HYT, you take a vow to accept the guru as a reincarnation of the Buddha, and to obey his instructions.
If you accept the guru as a Buddha in total trust, yet the guru turns out to not be trustworthy and not acting from a place of integrity with your best interests in mind, then you can wind up in a load of trouble. That's why it's essential to spend years checking out the guru, before you take that type of vow.
@Chaz said Would you surrender your total trust to a Buddha if you knew beyond any shadow of doubt that he's a Buddha? Can you believe anything beyond shadow of doubt?
Doubt is a hindrance; a shadow of a doubt is still a hindrance. If a buddha appeared before you here and now, and imparted his truth and wisdom - would that shadow of a doubt not be an obstacle to your realising the manifestation of the wisdom and truth of the buddha?
Be mindful of the hindrance of doubt and the subtle shadows of doubt. You might then surrender your total trust in the buddha.
The heavy emphasis on a Teacher or Master in Buddhism is simply following the model of "apprentice-master" type relationship that was the norm for most of history. It's not the same as the "student-teacher" relationship and follows different rules.
Definitely different!
"If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat."
But of course you're supposed to meet them first before you kill them.
I liked this video and I think he speaks truth here. He makes me beg the question though of what exactly a Rimpoche is, I see its a term not specific to just monastics? is it just a basic title for a master?
The heavy emphasis on a Teacher or Master in Buddhism is simply following the model of "apprentice-master" type relationship that was the norm for most of history. It's not the same as the "student-teacher" relationship and follows different rules.
Definitely different!
"If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat."
But of course you're supposed to meet them first before you kill them.
the whole "if you meet the buddha, kill the buddha" thing never worked out well for Devadatta lol.
Comments
myself even 10 years ago would think " yeah sure" with a snicker haha, but I am quite different then I was, aren't we all?
also He-man= awesome.. I grew up on he-man!
But until then we are responsible hence the quote in the dhammapada. I love that quote because it points out that there is a self. And that self is not a self as we ordinarily in a monkey mind way. Rather that self is the essence of emptiness. Nothing to grasp. Nothing else needed.
Good teachers are everywhere
Whether your in a local buddhist group or on an online forum (look at how many of them are out their and how many of those that are posting also attend buddhist centres for teaching and have gurus.
Either way they are human, and experience suffering and are looking for ways to alleviate that suffering. Its another method of enquiry, and occasional banter - feeling like they are part of a wider community striving for the same goal.
Unrepresentative - what a load of Tosh - sorry @Tosh for taking your name in vain!
These types of videos can be misleading, because they're not in context. If this is a small advanced group engaged in, say, the fifth day of a week long retreat, then the Teacher might judge them ready for some tough love and be right.
Here's another problem with saying Buddhists have to find an official, sanctioned teacher. A bad Teacher is worse than none at all because the student's nature is to latch onto the first one we find and consider it the student's fault if the relationship isn't conductive to learning. And almost never is the Teacher wise enough to know when he is the problem and not the student.
as for the debate about the majority of buddhists having a local group or not. I suppose that really depends on where you live. I would agree that most western buddhists who live in a city probably have a local group. But I live within an hour and a half of two of the most populous cities in the country, and where I live is a dhamma desert.
I would especially agree with your suggestion that Virtual Buddhists are unrepresentative of the larger sanghas. Virtual Buddhists and their "communities" are not like real-world Buddhists, at all.
If size matters, a look at the numbers. The CIA estimates indicate roughly 2 million Buddhists in the US (numbers vary across studies - CIA numbers are among the lowest). If this board has 100 regular users and lurkers (a generous estimate I think) that makes for a statistically insignificant numer. Overall I doubt that forums for Buddhists, have more than 1000 regular users in total. Still, a pretty slim slice. Just on the numbers alone, forums for Buddhists online can't be particularly representative. Impossible, actually.
I've been involved with most of these groups over a long period of time, and as far as I know very few of these people are involved in online forums.
I totally get thos number and they make sense.
Most Buddhists around here attend either Shambhala or NKT centers. Lots of small groups, too. The predominance of Shambhala and NKT can be attributed to aggressive marketing on NKT's part and long standing on the part of Shambhala. Both are very organized and focused.
I find a completely different dynamic, too. They don't spend time arguing subtle points of dharma or go heading off in inappropriate directions. They tend to look to their teachers for guidance and trust in it.
As you observe, VERY few, if any participate in online forums. Some teachers frown on it as idle chatter.
Virtual Buddhists are a different lot.
Also i forget that we live in different countries where the factors may be different.
Monastic Sanghas are usually created due to a a population from over seas living there, or else there would be no need or ability for the monks to be there. Lay teacher sanghas don't have to be connected that way.
Hardly! And here's some more ...
The old eSangha site had something like 28000 registered users when it was shut down. Less than 500 contributed regularly. I don't think all the extant Buddhist boards together top that number. If you take the higher number against the CIA's 2,000,000 figure. you get roughly 1.5%. That's not insignificant, but it's hardly representative, statistically speaking.
We all do. Even you. If you don't live near one, you can always travel. In the 11th century (CE) Marpa taveled From Tibet to India, and back, twice, to work with his Guru, Naraopa. He didn't have planes, trains, cars or any other mechanized transport. He walked, or rode a pony, or both.
What's your excuse?
You don't have to be in your teacher's presence 24/7. I haven't seen my Guru for years and I make it to Boulder to practice with my sangha only once a month. Some people are so devoted as to move to where their Guru is. Some are able to remain in areas seperate from the Guru. It makes no difference where you and the teacher are, but the teacher is more than just helpful. The Guru is a blessing.
On another note, Tsem has some great talks. But he can also be pedantic and condescending. But maybe that's because of the students he has, idk. Maybe he's tailoring his talk to his particular audience.
Not everyone feels the need to contribute on these forums - some are gleaners, or grazers, and can investigate and learn from the discussions that are had @Chaz. Maybe one day they will feel comfortable to enter the stream and have fruitful discussions that can go on to help others. It takes a lot to state things sometimes.
BTW - it's a bold statement but not everyone needs a teacher. Gautama taught us that!
You really need to be circumspect about a teacher. Paltrul Rinpoche outlined a process of selecting a teacher that, if followed, would take over 10 years. And that's not a bad idea.
It's a process that involves not just evaluating the teacher's qualifications and other such mundane matters, but also to determine if there's any sort of karmic connection. On the other hand, sometimes you just know.
no offence to you or your teacher intended (aware that some people may be offended by such similes - i smiles - stop it!).
We are all each others teachers - some people like to formalise it into a practice. I am learning a lot from you right now. Thank you.
There is nothing sacred about either relationship, but in particular the apprentice one assumes one master and a limited number of apprentices and a long relationship of many years. This relationship was as much an ingrained part of society as the family unit. People who grew up with this way of learning a career (and being a monk was a career) knew many of these masters could be abusive and many apprentices were lacking in motivation, but the master was expected to control just about every part of the apprentice's life and expected loyalty in return. An apprentice that was lazy or did not learn meant the master was shamed when people judged the apprentice did not learn enough. As long as the apprentice learned enough to please the master, it was good. Sometimes the relationship soured to the point where either the apprentice was kicked out or the poor guy ran off to find another master. The old stories of the monks and masters involve this type of relationship.
The point is, rarely did the apprentice have a choice of masters and rarely did the apprentice get to go find another one if he was unsatisfied.
Today, we have moved to a "student-teacher" dynamic. A student in a school will have many teachers, can switch schools even, and the teacher is not responsible for how the student turned out because he's a teacher, not a master. He can't lock the student in his room and demand he study.
So in Buddhism, teachers are necessary. But is a master necessary, that personal guru with the one-on-one relationship where the master has authority over your life? Heck, in today's world, we seem to be moving to teachers once removed over the internet and you can "earn a degree from home" if you want.
In Kwan Um Zen, we make a lot of fuss about the "don't know mind" otherwise known as beginner's mind or student's mind. That's the necessary ingredient for the Buddhist wanting to advance in their practice. I suppose if you have that, there are plenty of places on the internet that can be your teacher.
I do this on this forum and elsewhere. Gleaning knowledge and wisdom from you all. Sharing it if I think it may be helpful. Having fun along the way to being and achieving nothing more than master of myself, freeing myself from delusion and realising the truth of cessation of suffering, and praying everyone else does too! Don't always get it right, but then who does?
here: The "master" in my experience isn't that way at all.
A "Guru" having "authority over your life"? Who's that?
My Guru has no more authority over my life than I choose to give him. I still call the shots, and technically I can walk away any time I want. I risk is karma and blessing, but it's still mine to do with as I please. Even such classic stories such as Marpa and Milarepa show that Mila could have left Marpa at any time. He chose to stay. I don't know anyone who has the kind of relationship @Cinorjer describes. It seems like a straw man to me.
A "Guru" having "authority over your life"? Who's that?
My Guru has no more authority over my life than I choose to give him. I still call the shots, and technically I can walk away any time I want. I risk is karma and blessing, but it's still mine to do with as I please. Even such classic stories such as Marpa and Milarepa show that Mila could have left Marpa at any time. He chose to stay. I don't know anyone who has the kind of relationship @Cinorjer describes. It seems like a straw man to me.
But of course the guru-disciple relationship or master-apprentice is one where the guru has authority. He has the ultimate authority to provide the keys to enlightenment. That's what Dharma Transmission is all about. The disciple has to trust the master, of course. Misplaced trust can lead to terrible abuses. Look at the sad times we know this has happened in the recent past and tell me the guru didn't have authority over the student. The ultimate authority is to demand the worshipful trust from the disciple and get it.
And certainly in many cases, especially now, the disciple can leave and find a different master. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying there is something wrong with this relationship. I'm just saying don't confuse the master-disciple with the teacher-student relationship.
The Jewel Ornament of Liberation describes the qualities a guru should happen. Some of them possess different amounts of the qualities and the student needs to find a guru to their level; well that makes sense.
But that's not the same as authority over my life which is what I was objecting to.
As far as what you cite above goes. It's it authority or compassion. If it's authority, then why do I still have a choice. My Guru can dictate a practice, but it's up to me whether I'll do it or not Yes and it's the student that misplaces the trust, not the so-called "guru". If you misplace your trust, if you ignore the advice of generations of great lamas to teach circumspection, is that the "guru's" fault?
Give me a specific case, please? I guru can't have what I don't give to him. It's all up to me. The ultimate case of being obsequious, perhaps.
The guru cannot take what isn't given. If you do whatever the Guru says - like jump off a bridge and you do it, that your deaal not the Guru's. He might not be cool requiring you to do it, but you're still the dummy that jumped.
Just because your a Buddhist, doesn't mean you have no personal responsibility in how your path goes. Now? What's that supposed to mean? Milarepa could have left Marpa at any time. No one was holding the proverbial gun to his head. Mila did, in fact, leave for another teacher, but the teacher told him to go back to Marpa. Mila did what he was instructed to do, but again he didn't have to. That was 1000 years ago. If you're thinking that people today have more freedom of will than they did 1000 years ago, that just hubris. You're always free, until you relinquish your freedom.
That said, there there are centuries-old teachings about the how the student views the Guru. Those teachings (and I believe they can be found in Words of My Perfect Teacher) say that if you view your Guru as a fully enlightened Buddha then you can expect the blessing of a fully enlightened being. If you view your teacher as a lesser being you will get those kinds of blessing. NOWHERE does it say you HAVE to view the Guru as anything. In fact, view isn't something you can choose. View is something you either have or don't have. It isn't something you can manufacture.
Would you surrender your total trust to a Buddha if you knew beyond any shadow of doubt that he's a Buddha? Can you believe anything beyond shadow of doubt?
If you accept the guru as a Buddha in total trust, yet the guru turns out to not be trustworthy and not acting from a place of integrity with your best interests in mind, then you can wind up in a load of trouble. That's why it's essential to spend years checking out the guru, before you take that type of vow.
I've taken vows for practice at that level and never encountered any such precept.
I'm doing Ngondro right now, which is, essentially, a really long Guru Yoga practice and there's now such vow associated with that.
Be mindful of the hindrance of doubt and the subtle shadows of doubt. You might then surrender your total trust in the buddha.
Welcome home
"If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat."
But of course you're supposed to meet them first before you kill them.
the whole "if you meet the buddha, kill the buddha" thing never worked out well for Devadatta lol.
ˈrɪnpɒtʃeɪ/
noun
a religious teacher held in high regard among Tibetan Buddhists (often used as an honorific title).
nothing more ;-)