DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**expabsPapsgag** · 01-08-2012, 03:00 AM

Yes, I already know that - and sadly that can also sometimes be a convenient party line for some with lesser achievements posing as great teachers. Especially if the students are encouraged to view the teacher as a manifestation of the Buddha.

Maybe it would for some, but I think that if all the modern 'gurus' were crowded into a large room before a special test, it's possible that it might be almost empty afterwards, lol !

Said to be the same as the first Bodhisattva level, by the way.

Yes....1st bodhisattva level= Achieving Path of Seeing [emptiness directly/non-conceptually]= Stream Enterer

Namkai Norbu once said that there were only about 5 current Tibetan teachers who he believed to be enlightened (not sure if he was including himself in that group either).

In my lineage we're taught that our teachers are probably not highly realized beings (though we should not speculate one way or the other); they have flaws; we should not accept their reasoning, if we can make a good counterargument. My own teacher, as an example, oncec disagreed with a statement make by HHDL, who practices in our lineage. And HHDL's statement, that my own teacher disagreed with, was one disagreeing with a statement by Je Tsongkhapa, who founded the lineage. My teacher said that Je Tsongkhapa was correct and HHDL was wrong. This is common. In fact, Atisha, who is the father of 3 of the 4 main lineages (all the "new sarma" lineages) in Tibet, and who wrote the original Lam Rim work, which included a section on relating to teachers that was used as the template for all other Lam Rim works, totally disagreed on view with his own teacher, Serlingpa, whom he studied with in Indonesia. Serlingpa's view was Mind-Only (Cittamatra); Atisha was firmly rooted in Madyamaka Prasangika. However, Atisha's studies with Serlingpa concerned mainly development of bodhicitta---he was considered the best source for these teachings in the world at the time. So he was an effective teacher for Atisha.

I pity anyone who thinks they're forced to accept that their own teacher as a perfect Buddha. If their own teacher has all or most of the qualities that they are looking for in a teacher be happy with that. When your own teacher has some flaws but is able to teach effectively, learn from the teachings and don't discount the correct teachings due to personal flaws, and don't obsess about the flaws or the correct teachings and advices of your teacher will seem tainted (but don't engage in denial about what you see and know). When the flaws are of a magnitude where one doubts that such a teacher has achieved the level of control of her or his own mind to be able to retain the trust of the student, (for example, the teacher is known to sleep with students), or when one believes that the teacher's understanding of doctrine is seriously flawed (or we just can't accept it at all) then look elsewhere.

A lot of misconception about Tibetan practice comes from those who fail to separate actual visualizations, in which an idealized version of a being is mentally constructed, from relating, day to day, to spiritual friends. The former requires specific visual requirements and the being generated is imbued with all sorts of divine qualities. This is a meditation object, a mentally created object; nothing else.

The being we relate to day to day is viewed as the means to achieve the visualized being; it may have some modest realizations, or deeper ones. We view it as connected to the Buddha in the sense that it can teach us the dhamma so as to confer maximum benefit on us and a Buddha must appear and announce itself to us. So, in the absence of any announced Buddha this is the best and highest source of dhamma available to us.

If a teacher has no superior spiritual qualities which set it off from the student then it can't be an effective teacher, of course. A teacher points out the weaknesses and misconceptions of the student and instructs the student how to meditate, how to understand certain concepts, etc. It must have superior knowledge of scripture and of meditative states to be effective. It does NOT need to have achieved stream entry. Of course, it would be nice....

01-08-2012, 03:00 AM	#29
expabsPapsgag Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 359 Senior Member	Yes, I already know that - and sadly that can also sometimes be a convenient party line for some with lesser achievements posing as great teachers. Especially if the students are encouraged to view the teacher as a manifestation of the Buddha. Maybe it would for some, but I think that if all the modern 'gurus' were crowded into a large room before a special test, it's possible that it might be almost empty afterwards, lol ! Said to be the same as the first Bodhisattva level, by the way. Yes....1st bodhisattva level= Achieving Path of Seeing [emptiness directly/non-conceptually]= Stream Enterer Namkai Norbu once said that there were only about 5 current Tibetan teachers who he believed to be enlightened (not sure if he was including himself in that group either). In my lineage we're taught that our teachers are probably not highly realized beings (though we should not speculate one way or the other); they have flaws; we should not accept their reasoning, if we can make a good counterargument. My own teacher, as an example, oncec disagreed with a statement make by HHDL, who practices in our lineage. And HHDL's statement, that my own teacher disagreed with, was one disagreeing with a statement by Je Tsongkhapa, who founded the lineage. My teacher said that Je Tsongkhapa was correct and HHDL was wrong. This is common. In fact, Atisha, who is the father of 3 of the 4 main lineages (all the "new sarma" lineages) in Tibet, and who wrote the original Lam Rim work, which included a section on relating to teachers that was used as the template for all other Lam Rim works, totally disagreed on view with his own teacher, Serlingpa, whom he studied with in Indonesia. Serlingpa's view was Mind-Only (Cittamatra); Atisha was firmly rooted in Madyamaka Prasangika. However, Atisha's studies with Serlingpa concerned mainly development of bodhicitta---he was considered the best source for these teachings in the world at the time. So he was an effective teacher for Atisha. I pity anyone who thinks they're forced to accept that their own teacher as a perfect Buddha. If their own teacher has all or most of the qualities that they are looking for in a teacher be happy with that. When your own teacher has some flaws but is able to teach effectively, learn from the teachings and don't discount the correct teachings due to personal flaws, and don't obsess about the flaws or the correct teachings and advices of your teacher will seem tainted (but don't engage in denial about what you see and know). When the flaws are of a magnitude where one doubts that such a teacher has achieved the level of control of her or his own mind to be able to retain the trust of the student, (for example, the teacher is known to sleep with students), or when one believes that the teacher's understanding of doctrine is seriously flawed (or we just can't accept it at all) then look elsewhere. A lot of misconception about Tibetan practice comes from those who fail to separate actual visualizations, in which an idealized version of a being is mentally constructed, from relating, day to day, to spiritual friends. The former requires specific visual requirements and the being generated is imbued with all sorts of divine qualities. This is a meditation object, a mentally created object; nothing else. The being we relate to day to day is viewed as the means to achieve the visualized being; it may have some modest realizations, or deeper ones. We view it as connected to the Buddha in the sense that it can teach us the dhamma so as to confer maximum benefit on us and a Buddha must appear and announce itself to us. So, in the absence of any announced Buddha this is the best and highest source of dhamma available to us. If a teacher has no superior spiritual qualities which set it off from the student then it can't be an effective teacher, of course. A teacher points out the weaknesses and misconceptions of the student and instructs the student how to meditate, how to understand certain concepts, etc. It must have superior knowledge of scripture and of meditative states to be effective. It does NOT need to have achieved stream entry. Of course, it would be nice....
	Quote