An entry from my
e-book
9th
August 2014
The Benefits and Limitations of Teachers
and Lineages
Tom
Radcliffe said that realization would be impossible without the direct guidance
of a living teacher and lineage.
I replied
with a long post on my opinions on lineage and teachers based on my experience:
"There
are actually exceptional people who did not rely on teachers to come to the
realization of anatta/emptiness/D.O. etc. Thusness is an example of such a
person -- he awakened through contemplating on the Buddha's teachings and the
texts of certain ancient masters. Having said that, his capacity of wisdom is
probably much higher and students like me could never have awakened by myself
without relying on a real life teacher. So the advise that one should find a
good teacher still stands, just that there are some rare exceptions to the
rule.
Though I
find the guidance of teachers to be valuable in leading towards a foundation in
practice, I also find that it can be limiting. Therefore I do not recommend
focusing on only one teacher's teaching completely but have a more
broad/widened understanding and knowledge of dharma while at the same time
still working with those teachers. (From my observations as over the years I
have met with many teachers in various traditions, all of whom have sort of
acknowledged my insights/realizations/experience in one way or another.)
For
example most Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers I have personally encountered
or had experiences with were were limited to the "I AM" (Eternal
Witness) and "One Mind" (substantial nondualism where subject/object
are undivided) perspective. So they can only guide their students to that
realization. That is definitely useful, but a lot more insights need to unfold
IMO. But some students are stuck due to some blind faith or devotion to certain
teachers, for example Thusness had some trouble at the beginning trying to
bring out 'Simpo' (a friend of mine) from the I AM realization into deeper
realization like nondual, anatta, D.O. and emptiness at the beginning, because
of his great faith or devotion to a particular teacher who was very much into
the I AM. This is where faith to a teacher, or the teacher of the student, can
become a great limitation for that student. But fortunately, Simpo did
eventually come to experience the truth that Thusness was pointing out to him,
and later came to deeply appreciate the subtleties of the Buddhadharma. I
myself have been in a sort of similar situation before but I digress, and so
has many others that I've seen.
Then there
are teachers like Daniel Ingram, whose insights into anatta etc and their
practice advices I greatly appreciate, nevertheless would consider themselves
(and people like me) as having attained arahantship due to their vastly
different interpretations of the models of enlightement. Daniel Ingram, if you
do not know who he is, is a qualified lineaged teacher from a well known Mahasi
Sayadaw Vipassana tradition and given permission to teach from their lineage
teachers.
If I had
believed their claim that I have attained arahantship, it may have led me to a
place of complacency -- feeling I'm done, done with the path/whatever. And in a
way I can definitely see how that can manifest -- because the insights I've
experienced have a sense of unshakeable stability as I pointed out before. But
fortunately, I have come to see like Yor Sunyata, both from my own experience
-- both of experiencing the wisdom that led to freedom from afflictions in
daily life as well as even in states of dream, dreamless and sleep paralysis,
as well as the insight into the total exertion of karmic propensities itself --
as well as the traditional suttas, that the other fetters or afflictions can
and do cease further on in one's path. Therefore I am convinced, I am
confident, that the freedom-from-fetter model as advertised by the Buddha is
valid just-as-it-is rather than 'unrealistic' (as some teachers like Daniel and
many others might think), and there is in fact still a long way to go to full
awakening/liberation.
You said,
"I think many people stop short of the goal due to not having a way to
examine the current state of affairs and this is where a teacher and study is
helpful." -- yes it is very easy for some unlearned run-off-the-mill
person who have no access to maps, to teachers, etc, to mistake whatever they
experience for enlightenment. Some people may even think their LSD experience
or whatever was enlightenment, or mistaking A&P with enlightenment, etc. If
they have an experienced teacher or mentor, those good advisers can certainly
cut the bullshit out of the student easily than have them stuck in whatever
place for a long time. While that you said is true, it can also be true, as in
the example I gave above, that "many people stop short of the goal due to
HAVING examined the current state of affairs with a TEACHER according to their
(teacher's) maps". That teacher may consider himself, or be considered by
others to be arahants, but doesn't in any way necessarily means that what they
have attained is truly what the Buddha had in mind about "Arahants".
This is
why, while one should definitely work with teachers, at the same time, one
should learn the Buddha's teachings, scriptures, and judge teachings according
to them. The Buddha made it very clear that his words must take precedence over
any monk's (or any practitioners' or teachers') words. For example,
"In
Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.180, the Buddha taught the great authorities. He
advised that when any monk says that such and such are the teachings of the
Buddha, we should, without scorning or welcoming his words compare those words
with the Suttas and Vinaya. If they are not in accordance with the Suttas and
Vinaya, we should reject them."
"To
some of you, Ānanda, it may occur thus: 'The words of the Teacher have ended,
there is a Teacher no longer'. But it should not, Ānanda, be so considered. Indeed,
Ānanda, that which I have taught and made known to you as the Dhamma and the
Vinaya will be your Teacher after my passing away."
--
Mahāparinibbāna Sutta
"If
he does not teach according to the words of the Buddha
even if he
is a guru, one should remain indifferent. "
-- Sakya
Pandita
Also as
the Buddha stated in
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.16-Ahita-Thera-S-a5.88-piya.pdf
-- even famous teachers may have wrong views.
This is
where Refuge in the Three Jewels become very important -- because we should not
rely on on our own ideas of the dharma, nor even what some other teachers might
say about enlightenment, but rather we rely on the Buddha himself -- the
perfectly enlightened one -- and the Dharma he taught as contained in the
scriptures, and the Sangha -- which in this case refers to the Arya sangha --
the sangha of the awakened noble ones that realized the Buddha's dharma. We
rely on their teachings and dharma.
Having
said that, I am not suggesting that one must find a fully awakened or liberated
or perfect-in-every-way teacher. What if one never finds one in the world? A
good teacher is imo, someone who can lead you to the next step. If you are
finding I AM realization, then a teacher that can lead you to that is a good
teacher, even if it is not the Buddhist sort of enlightenment. Then you can
move on to other teachings and practices. That's fine. Learn from them, but
don't be limited by them.
As I
mentioned in this group before, one day many years ago I felt great despair at
the thought of not having found any teacher that I feel could lead me forward
in my practice swiftly to full awakening, "why isn't there someone like a
Buddha or fully awakened being nowadays that I could learn from and quickly
lead me to complete liberation?" There was a sense of disappointment as I
felt my insights have already surpassed those teachers I have met (with the
exception of a few like Thusness -- whose continued guidance I was greatly
indebted to, and without which I could not have seen the subtlety of
Buddhadharma). Then, I fell asleep... I had a dream of clarity. In that dream,
I went up an elevator to a place, where every single person I met had the face
of my teacher! The same face.
Then even
in that dream itself, I suddenly understood: every person, every thing, every
event, is your teacher! The whole universe is your teacher. We should practice
with that mindset. First of all, it humbles oneself because of a change of
perspective in how we relate to the universe, secondly, one expands one's
attitude of "who I can learn from" from a narrow minded idealized
vision of what a teacher should be, to the whole universe. Every person or
thing in the universe, even from their mistakes etc, can become your teacher.
We should be grateful for every single teacher, even the person who taught you
how to tie your shoe laces."
Tom
Radcliffe said, "There are no exceptional people - at least I've never met
one."
I replied,
"I've only met one person who realized anatta/emptiness/D.O. without
living teachers to point it out to him -- Thusness. However, as pointed out, he
also had teachers (mainly not from the Buddhist tradition) before he
encountered the Buddhadharma. Also, he took refuge with his father under
H.H.Sakya Trizin, however, he does not practice Vajrayana.
On another
point... I think I haven't shared about this before... but I might take this
opportunity to share. Some of my experience with working with lineage
teachings.
I was from
very young being introduced to Dharma in Ren Cheng Buddhism under Venerable
Shen Kai (I took refuge when I was 2 and started attending classes at 12). He
passed away in 1996 but we have access to his writings in written form and
recorded forms. His dharma successor, Missionary Chen Ming An had been teaching
his dharma since, and we also have a local dharma teacher Li Zhu Lao Shi who
has been guiding us. Ven. Shen Kai hold the Linji Ch'an lineage (also the more
commonly known Ven. Sheng Yen was his dharma brother, both studied under Ch'an
Master Dongchu), however, Ven. Shen Kai do not call 'Ren Cheng Buddhism',
'Ch'an' but integrates its teachings with it. It can be considered to be a new
school of Buddhism.
The
perspective of Ren Cheng is (like many other Chinese Mahayana teachers) to
emphasize on 'Yi Men Shen Ru' which is to focus on one dharma door and enter
deeply. Otherwise, according to this perspective, one may be looking through
the various doors but never get into the center of that building. There is very
great devotion and faith among the followers in the teacher of the tradition.
Having a teacher or master in a lineage allows a student to have access to a
large pool of teachings which are highly consistent -- than for example, asking
a total beginner to search from piles of often contradictory or confusing
teachings by different teachers and different writings, not knowing where to
start. As Missionary Chen Ming An personally told me when I conversed with him
for about an hour the last time, the good thing about lineage and lineage
Master is that such a teacher can distill the countless sutra teachings into an
essential path for the practitioner. Otherwise how does the practitioner know
what or how to apply the teachings?
Working
with a teacher also means intimate guidance which definitely helps a lot with one's
own practice and understanding. While I find that focusing on a
lineage/tradition/teacher may be important at a beginning, it can also become
restrictive later. This is because it prevents broadening of one's dharma
knowledge by focusing exclusively on the teachings of one particular lineage or
teacher. Therefore, another perspective from the Tibetan side is equally valid
IMO -- that one should be like a bee, happily collecting nectar from different
flowers. Then there is also a potential problem: one may become like some
run-off-the-mill Buddhists going to countless initiations here and there,
collecting 'teachings' and 'initiations' but never being able to apply any of
them in practice. Those are two extremes we should avoid IMO -- being
restricted, or practicing spiritual materialism and making a junk shop out of a
huge collection of dharma.
Back to
what I was saying... The teachings taught in RC has been to put the
Buddhadharma in a plain, practical way for lay people to understand and apply
them in their daily life. It is certainly useful in that way and has attracted
a huge following. The emphasis of the teachings is on grounding one's practice
and awareness and insights in one's daily living, in the midst of the daily
encounters and interactions, which I do find to be quite important (in fact
even more so recently). I find that their teachings have given me some
grounding and basic knowledge in the Buddhadharma. It was very useful in
pointing a person to path that leads to spiritual progress rather than being
misdirected or misled in many possible ways. The pointers to Awareness and the
path of practice based on that direct realization of Awareness was pretty
clear, direct and straightforward. This can lead to some fundamental insights
and realizations. It is also the teachings in RC that started my whole
spiritual path to begin with. So in many ways I am also indebted to the
teachings in RC.
At the same time, their teaching was pretty much restricted to the Awareness teachings perspective. That is, the I AM/Eternal Witness and One Mind perspective. [Update 2022: I can confirm that the local dharma teacher Li Zhu Lao Shi’s understanding is no longer at the level of I AM and she has realised anatta over the years.] If I focused exclusively on their teachings that may be the limit of my insights and progress. In 2009 the local dharma teacher advised me to stop going to online forums -- or actually, to solely focus on studying the tradition's teaching. I think there are some valid reasons to it -- for example, a dharma teacher may be worried that I may be influenced by 'wrong views' from my exposure to the views and teachings posted online.
However, to the contrary, because I did not restrict myself to the teachings or opinions of certain traditions, I could study the dharma and have my own understanding outside the authority/'jurisdiction' of any particular traditions. And as a result, I have found that my understanding of dharma has expanded, and I have come to my own understanding and conclusions based on the teachings of the Buddha and many other teachers and guides. I studied the suttas -- read the whole of Majjhima Nikaya and a few other suttas books. [Update 2022: Later on I also read many Mahayana and Vajrayana texts and sutras] I found that self-study to be invaluable to one's understanding and practice of dharma. I have also met and conversed with a number of teachers from various traditions -- Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. And although I have not conversed with non-Buddhist teachers, for a time in the past I was also very much into Advaita Vedanta.
Also, very
fortunately, over the years, Thusness have been instilling right view in me, so
that while I was contemplating on the Bahiya Sutta one day, realization of
anatta manifested. And then there were other breakthroughs and insights since.
So...
working with a teacher in a lineage has its own benefits and limitations. In my
opinion, lineage is by no means a magical pill that bestows full realization or
Buddhahood, but it can often lead to a good foundation. Then at some point,
having a certain grounding, one should progress oneself."
I also like Greg Goode's article: https://greg-goode.com/article/from-the-age-of-the-guru-to-the-age-of-the-friend/#
From the Age of the Guru to the Age of the Friend
(I wrote this article back in 2005, and it’s been
floating around the Internet ever since. Since 2005, social media have
been a major factor affecting how we engage spirituality. It’s now
easier to be a friend, and easier to be a guru as well. But I haven’t
updated the article itself. I’ve just checked the hyperlinks to make
sure they are still valid, and added some Amazon suggestions at the
end.)
Recently a guru admitted to me,
You know, when I stopped believing that I was enlightened and others weren’t, all the fun went out of giving satsang!
The age of the guru is over. This is the age of the friend. The
message of self-knowledge and liberation is outstripping any guru’s
ability to contain it. People have been discovering that the message is
independent of the messenger. The message has become detached from its
older, exclusivistic, privileged stage settings. No longer must it
travel down from a hierarchy. These days the message of liberation
spreads horizontally from person to person. It moves more like an ocean
than a waterfall. It grows more like a rhizome than an oak tree.
Of course there are still gurus. There will be gurus as long as there
are friends. There will always be some gurus able to serve as wonderful
teachers and inspiring examples. But these days the
friend is
providing more and more of the same services. The friend is spreading
the message of self-knowledge, opening hearts with lovingkindness, and
inspiring others with enthusiasm.
Morphing the Guru Model
The turn from the guru to the friend is not just a matter of
inspiration; it’s also a matter of information. We’ve got freer access
to what was formerly more selective and closed. The message of
self-knowledge has reached interested parties wherever there’s
communication. And this communication no longer needs to flow through
the narrow-band guru-frequency, but has overflowed and become broadband.
This has caused the guru model itself to morph into something more
democratic and decentralized. There are more teachers with less
charisma. In California, supply exceeds demand to the point where a
student can choose from any number of retreats on a given weekend.
Retreat leaders have had to lower their fees to keep competitive. And
then during the following week, the students e-mail the teachings out to
all their friends, who then tell others.
The connotations of the term “guru” are changing. Traditionally this Sanskrit word has been interpreted to mean dispeller (
ru) of darkness (
gu).
It was understood primarily in personal terms, and the guru was
worshipped as an incarnation of God — a sacred, exclusive conduit to
self-realization. These days, the metaphor has gone stale. No longer do
people accept the image that they’re in darkness until assisted by a
purportedly perfected human being. In spiritual circles, the “guru” word
is more and more taken to point to the seeker’s own innermost self.
Exclusivity not Politically Correct
No longer can people believe that liberation speaks only Tibetan, or
that the world was created from holy Sanskrit syllables. People are
saying, “If it can’t be said in my language, then it isn’t so universal
after all.” Even as recently as thirty years ago, seekers of
self-awareness had to trek to India or the Himalayas to see someone who
could impart a message of liberation. These days there are many routes:
Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon, Yahoo, Google, mobile phones and
BlackBerries. Teachings that used to be limited to a select few are now
being joyously shared between friends in any language. Even decades
ago, you had to go to ashrams or temples and maybe wait three days
before the keepers would let you enter. Now the same message can be
found in coffee shops, living rooms, cyber chat-rooms and even prisons. A
few of the younger gurus are beginning to adapt their teachings to this
new democratic tone. They’ve backed off from the stance of exlusivity
and have come closer to celebrating friendship and enlightened
ordinariness. And other gurus are digging in their heels and sticking to
the old story.
Warts and Information
Public figures are now commonplace. We know more about more people.
We see their warts and indiscretions. This is inevitable in today’s
infoculture where bloggers and paparazzi themselves can get famous. The
older guru model can’t survive this much information. According to the
older and exalted versions of the guru model, the guru is a unique and
perhaps perfected example of humanity. Maybe divinity in temporary human
clothing. Some have even said that the guru is beyond God. But as
information increases, it becomes much harder for this image to survive.
High perfection becomes low comedy with each new revelation of
vegetarian gurus caught eating chiliburgers, celibate gurus discovered
having affairs with their PR chiefs, or miracle-wielding gurus
photographed with trinkets in the folds of their sleeves.
Information on gurus abounds in ways that were unthinkable a while
ago. There’s up-close and personal information in books such as
Feet of Clay,
Mother of God, or
Enlightenment Blues. There are websites such as Jerry Katz’s famous
Nonduality.com,
which has helped deconstruct the older guru model by its sheer breadth
of expression, and by listing so many gurus, including literary and
movie characters. Then there’s
Sarlo’s Guru Ratings
pages, which freely give subjective and personal scores to gurus, along
with the gurus’ anti-sites where possible. There’s Jody Radzik, who for
years has been a fly in the ointment, reminding people that a guru’s
image of perfection is created by the student’s idealizations. Recently
Jody has come up with
guruphilac.org, an newsy info blog with guru refugee-sites and other poop and scoop that makes it much harder to idealize the guru.
What About Enlightenment by Transmission?
But it’s not always about the message. Another angle to the guru model is the notion of
enlightenment by transmission
(EBT). In the EBT model, the special thing is the guru’s very presence.
It has nothing to do with information or the words spoken, but
everything to do with the special state the guru is thought to be in.
The evidence for this state is thought to be the certain glow and
energetic vibrancy which can be felt by devotees in the presence of the
guru, especially in large group meetings. According to the EBT model, if
the disciple gets physically, emotionally or psychically close to the
guru, this state can be transmitted from the guru to the disciple. The
transmission can be instantaneous or progressive over years. But
thinking is starting to change on this aspect as well.
People are asking about the relations between this energy and
enlightenment. “Is this energy really what constitutes enlightenment, or
is enlightenment something else altogether?” “If this energy
can
be transmitted, then why does the blissful feeling dissipate in me and
not remain?” “Why do I feel the same way now in the presence of my guru
that I felt many years ago at a Bruce Springsteen concert?” “After
spending three decades in the guru’s presence, why don’t I possess this
energy so that I can then go on to transmit it to someone else?” “What
is the relation between me and the energy? Whose energy is it? Am I the
energy or the experiencer of the energy?”
In the West since the 60’s and the Vietnam phenomenon, there’s less
reliance on authority, lower patience for rigid hierarchies, and
diminished credulity towards metanarratives (as Jean-Francois Lyotard
wrote in
The Postmodern Condition.) Causal explanations tend to
be more rhizomatic and less arboreal – we don’t look as much for single
causes, we look more for interactive scenarios and networks of
relations.
This kind of orientation has changed how people respond to the EBT
model as well. There’s more knowledge about psychology, group dynamics
and human energetics. What used to be more mystical has become more
naturalized. What used to be attributed to a very special person is now
seen as more of a social phenomenon. These days for example, the
contributions of the observer and her conditioning play a much larger
role in psychological explanations. This includes the EBT model. What
might have been seen a century ago as the guru’s divine energy might now
be seen as dependent on projection from people with very strong and
similar beliefs. The guru’s special glow might now be seen as the same
kind of charisma possessed by politicians and celebrities. Where the
guru is concerned, projection and charisma depend on expectations, which
take their shape depending on images in social settings and spiritual
writings. There’s not as great a tendency to see the guru as a single,
personal root cause. There are still interpersonal spiritual experiences
and people who help transform others. But today’s thinking permits
these things to happen more and more among friends.
No Power Loss
Does the message or experience of liberation get diluted if it
reaches you through night-shift clerk at the local 7-11? Isn’t it better
to go directly to the source? More and more people are saying “No – the
source is everywhere.” People are understanding liberation as something
that can be communicated by anyone, with every breath. Red flags go up
whenever someone demands that only certain people can be the source. The
source
can be found at the convenience store, and people are now
seeing that it’s the same thing that comes from the wise old bearded
guy on top of the hill. There’s a twinkle in his eye because it’s what
he’s been saying all along.
...................