Dalai lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Brahm

Organisational work, teaching, Sunday school syllabus, charitable work, outreach, sharing of resources, artwork, etc.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Dalai lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Brahm

Post by ground »

rowyourboat wrote:TMingyur

I reacted differently to 'worldly' - I thought you were talking of internationally renowned teachers. I wonder if people would prefer a local more accessible teacher, to an internationally renowned one? Maybe if there was a 'dhamma continuum' (as is the case with Goenka and his assistant teachers) it would be much more acceptable (rather than just relying on books/talks/Cds).

with metta

Matheesha
Well "internationally renowned" may be a characteristic of both, lay persons and ordained persons.
For some a large following of a teacher may support their having faith in these persons (kind of "herd instinct"). But as to a teacher I think "the larger the following the greater the allurement of Mara" and that this holds true for both lay and ordained teachers.
Nevertheless the fact that someone did ordain and stayed ordained for me is sort of an indicator of "competence" (provided that ethical conduct corresponds).
But all this is really very much dependent on one's view as to monasticism which I think is dependent on one's view on the relation between "the worldly sphere" and "the dhamma".
E.g. There may be people who are unable to rely on monastics but can only rely on lay people.

'dhamma continuum' sounds like "lineage" which is the seed of "tradition".There certainly is nothing wrong with this but on the other hand it may be a further trap causing one to "settle down" at the wrong time and in the wrong place.
I think that if one has received some benefit from a teacher one should consider to "leave" her/him and not stay around and wait for "more" or "something better". In this way one may experience if one really has received some benefit or if one has deluded oneself into projecting "benefit" onto what is just another instance of clinging.

But the Theravada concept of "spiritual friend" is maybe not compliant with the concept of "teacher" anyway. A "spiritual friend" may be one who one asks from time to time, i.e. occasionally, while attending to one's own "business" during the rest of the time, right?


Kind regards
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Dalai lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Brahm

Post by rowyourboat »

Hi TMingyur,

Thank you. You have given me much to think about.

1) Monasticsm- yes, I guess it would make sense for the leader to make sure his monastics teach straight down the line dhamma from the suttas (yes, it would be a particularly 'middle of the road' interpretation). Also I see that there is no harm in letting lay people teach the same interpretation, especially where monastics are in short supply (or even concommitantly). There is the assumption that monastics are 'professionals' in the matter and lay people are part-timers, which may or may not be true of course. Also the Buddha instructed us to learn from those who have attained to a higher state than a lower state- there is more of a chance of this being a monastic (on average).

2) sticking to 'lineages' is a problem. I guess practitioners must be encouraged to learn how to differentiate true dhamma and true dhamma teachers. The Buddha simply said to follow practices which will reduce craving, aversion and delusion, whatever the source was. Those foundations will be helpful when the leader is no more and the dispensation is in free fall.

3) by 'dhamma continuum' I meant standardising what is taught. This will ensure the true dhamma is taught. People can check with centralised sources whether the interpretation of the local teacher (lay or monastic) is up to scratch and in line with the suttas. Within that framework, the instructors would be free to expand, elaborate, give personal opinions as they please. It is important for a dhamma teacher to be able to speak from the heart and their own experience. I guess if they are taught to evaluate meditation methods using basics of mental cultivation, they could even comment on meditation methods of other teachers, outside this framework. :shrug:

4) Large gatherings are suspect. I agree. They appeal to the masses. The Buddha had the lay/monastic split to perhaps denote serious practice with the less serious. He did teach each group slightly different 'strengths' of dhamma. I guess the challenge for this leader would be to make monasticism more accessible - make it seem less of an exotic unattainable form of practice. Maybe shorter term, say 2 week, 'ordination' may be helpful in making monasticism less alien/foreign. There maybe other ways I haven't thought of..In ancient India it was common for the youngest in the family to leave home and seek nibbana, apparently. Why not make it accessible?

5) The Buddha said he was a kalyanamitta to everyone. He also encouraged seeking a teacher for whom you felt affection and a strong sense of moral shame/dread for. These qualities are crucial when difficult bits of the vipassana nanas are unfolding inside of practitioners. I think the 'pot-puri' approach to the dhamma is a modern invention (and not a bad one under the circumstances). I think it would be best to tap into the mass acceptance phenomenon to recreate this within an international audience. But it will still be difficult..

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Post Reply