chownah wrote:
This is not exactly a definition but perhaps is worth thinking about:
1. You can see a form and think "teacher".
2. You can hear a sound and think "teacher".
3. You can smell an odor and think "teacher".
4. You can taste a flavor and think "teacher".
5. You can feel a bodily sensation and think "teacher".
6. You can experience a thought and think "teacher".
What else can there be to a teacher?
chownah

Ben wrote:Hi Daniel
You might like to have a read of Ven Analayo's "Satipatthana: the direct path to realization" where he talks about contemplating the hindrances.
kind regards,
Ben

Ben wrote:Hi Daniel,
I don;t have my copy with me currently. I do remember Venerable writing about reviewing the hindrances. It could be in the Investigation of Dhammas section. I'm sorry I can't be more specific.
kind regards,
Ben

danieLion wrote:PS: Can a BOOK be a teacher?
TMingyur wrote:danieLion wrote:PS: Can a BOOK be a teacher?
Acoustical symbols and optical symbols ... both are just symbols without inherent meaning. However meaning unfolds upon contact.
Kind regards

danieLion wrote:Still, I'd rather have the flesh and blood version when possible.
danieLion wrote:3. I've observed several practitioners use the phrase "my teacher" in a way that suggests they're wearing it like a credential badge or a backstage pass, or as conferring the right to brag on them, which can devolve to: My Ajahn can beat up your Ajahn!
TMingyur wrote:danieLion wrote:Still, I'd rather have the flesh and blood version when possible.
Which of course is just an optical symbol.
Kind regards

mikenz66 wrote:And this idea that "there are only a couple of good teachers" sometimes seems to be used as an excuse not to make use of local resources which, even if not perfect, are infinitely better than nothing.
I sometimes mention that something is what my (various, they come and go) teachers have said when I don't have a good reference, or because it makes for a more interesting conversational tone (I dislike writing in the third person). And also to emphasise that my no-name teachers tend to mostly agree with the famous ones. As one would expect from competent practitioners...
![]()
Mike
danieLion wrote:TMingyur wrote:danieLion wrote:Still, I'd rather have the flesh and blood version when possible.
Which of course is just an optical symbol.
Kind regards
As long as it's squishy I don't care if it's illusory.
Daniel
Teachers lend us bits and pieces, which are merely fragments to serve as hints or as leads for us to contemplate so that they'll grow and branch out into our own wealth.
Any Dhamma that's a wealth coming from our own tactics: That's truly our own wealth. We'll never exhaust it. If we can think and probe cunningly in removing defilements until they fall away completely, using the tactics we develop on our own from the ideas our teachers lend us as starting capital, that's our own Dhamma. However much may arise, it's all our own Dhamma. What we derive from the texts is the Buddha's — and we borrow it from him. What we get from our teachers, we borrow from them — except when we are listening to them teach and we understand the Dhamma and cure defilement at that moment: That's our wealth while we are listening. After that, we take their tactics to contemplate until they branch out through our own ingenuity. This is our own wealth, in terms both of the causes — our contemplation — and of the outcome, the satisfactory results we gain step by step all the way to release from suffering and stress — and that's entirely ours. It stays with us, and no one can come to divide up any of our share at all.
Return to Theravada Meditation
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests