On discipleship

[thaddeus]

Starting a new thread based on comments in the standing thread about discipleship.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume discipleship is entitling one to any special instruction. I know a few 'disciples' and they don't seem to be getting anything great. I can respect it as a tradition, but look at it logically. Out of all the really great masters, which ones are attributing their greatness to a disciple relationship with their 'master'?

Unfortunately, what i've seen regarding discipleship, it's more about exploitation, control, jealousy and damn near extortion sometimes.

Face it, if you're under someone's wings, you will always be second best and never as good as the original. Look at Ueshiba, Yang Cheng Fu, Wang Zhang Xai, etc. etc. Lineages are ok, but by definition, they have to get watered down through time.

T

[Cameron]

It's an interesting debate. Since you mentioned Ueshiba, I was fortunate enough to learn from some of his direct disciples on and off for several years(I no longer practice Aikido and switched to BJJ).

 

From my experience, his direct disciples had a quality and presence/energy etc that was totally unique. They sometimes would tell stories about daily life with the master that went beyond what a 'normal' student that only goes a couple classes a week or whatever would do.

 

For example, I remember Chiba Shihan once gave an interview where he talked about how one of his best teachings with O'sensei was when he would carry his luggage around Tokyo. He said O'sensei had this abilty wherever he walked, even on a busy crowded Tokyo street, the crowds would magically open up before him. It was this quality of presence that just seemed to make others either get out of his way or adjust themselves.

 

This extra exposure is probably one of the benifits of studying with a great master. I don't know if it is so much getting the 'secret teaching' as much as just being around the guy more, seeing how he interacts in everyday life etc. Probably those other 'special' teachings just come about naturally from having a direct, personal realationship with another human being(in this case a spiritual or martial arts master etc).

 

Actually, Pietro's teacher Bruce has just about the most amazing story of anyone you can read about it in his books how he was a strong 'external' karate champion then came into contact with O'sensei in Japan and was like " Fuck! What is that!" Then(from what he says) studied with O'sensei a couple years. When O'sensei died Bruce says none of his students had his level of chi or whatever(having studed with several of them I would say they had poweful qi but I never met O'sensei who was probably on another level) So Bruce went to China for like 10 years or something and trained with alot of top internal fighters until the amazing story of meeting Liu who only taught him because he had a dream!

 

in any case, whether this is 100% true or not Bruce certainly was deticated and basically committed his life to finding a true master, which it sounds like he did. Maybe becoming a 'disciple' or whatever invovles having this deep desire to learn more.

 

Or maybe it is completely unneccisary but just a fun/interesting personal karma conenctions.

[Trunk]

This topic is primarily about transmission of enery and transmission of states of mind. Integral to this is deep reconfiguration of the consciousness of the disciple. Externally, its about being around the Teacher frequently. Internally, its about blending your mind-stream with that of the Teacher, and about your body learning - through a sort of spiritual osmisis - from the body of the Teacher. Classically this is done with an enlightened, or at least very high level, Teacher who is backed up by a Celestial Lineage (a group of beings that reside in a heavenly plane). The Lineage lends power, purity, stability, and structure to the Teacher, and the disciples receive those through the Teacher. All of which serves as a vehicle for transmission of Universal Principle.

 

These sorts of relationships save students countless lifetimes of work.

 

From my experience, his direct disciples had a quality and presence/energy etc that was totally unique.

[thelerner]

Lets not disregard the benefit of simple practice. Lots of it, tons of it, that ushedeshi (live in students) get.

 

Michael

[Cameron]

Yes, but regular practice with whom? O'sensei!!

 

Thelearner_pw3d_

 

*kidding and basically agree with you*

[thelerner]

For all the incredible greats we are aware of, there are many more, dozens? hundreds? That may well be there equals, but either prefer a quieter life, or have simply never had the spot light shined on them. For example an Ueshiba contemporary, his nephew, Inoue, was raised w/ him, and has his own extraordinary , but very small practice but remains virtually unknown (See PreWorld War II Aikido Masters). Every martial art has at there very top people who seemingly transcend human limits.

 

Bruce Frantzis implied he found many Ueshiba level people in China. Heck that 90 year old doing the one finger stand isn't too shabby. With a little more practice he should be able to do it w/ his pinky .

 

Michael

[Cameron]

Bruce made it sound like Ueshiba level is no big deal in China though he did imply Liu was the top dog. Also that Liu had put together more of a complete system.

 

As Bruce says, Aikido is great but very little real energy work. My last aikido teacher was one of the top in the country and I basically told him about qigong since there wasn't much of any taught in aiki even though they constantly talk about energy.

 

In BJJ there is no energy work but they don't ever talk about it. Aikido is like a fragmented system which is why you have all these teachers like Koichi Tohei who split off to explore on there own.

 

It sounds like Liu had it all for Bruce and there was no longer any doubt. I guess if I ever became someones 'disciple' it would have to feel like that. All doubt about the system and the person erased. You feel like you basically found what you were looking for whether it was spiritual, health, martial etc etc.

[Cameron]

Here is Adyashanti's view on this from the book "The Awakening West" that Sean sent me as a gift.

 

JLW: What is the role of the teacher?

 

ADYASHANTI: The role of the teacher is to simply be him or her self. That's really ultimately the role of the teacher. The role of the teacher is to respond to the question of the student in such a way that the question is used to point back to the student's true nature, which is exactly the same as the teacher's true nature. So, ultimately the true desire of all authentic teachers is to put themselves out of business as quickly as possible. This means to have the student rise to the same level of consciousness that they are so that they are no longer needed. As long as a true teacher understands that, then their motivation will be very pure.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Cameron

[Trunk]

.. I was referring to the role of a meditation teacher.

[Cameron]

Adyashanti is a "meditation" teacher and Liu taught Bruce an entire system of Taoist meditation. Did I miss something Trunk?

 

Edit- Trunk, ok I see you may be talking about martial artists. Almost all the internal martial artists blend there systems with some form of meditation. O'sensei studied Shinto heavily and did a system of chanting and meditation. Obviously, Liu did Taoist Water Method that Bruce teaches along with the Baghuazhang.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Cameron

[Pietro]

Bruce made it sound like Ueshiba level is no big deal in China though he did imply Liu was the top dog. Also that Liu had put together more of a complete system.

 

Yes, that was my sensation too. He said few times (altthough not always very openly, to avoid offending people) that when you looked at O'Sensei with a martial art eye "it was very clear that what he was doing was" (coming from) "Ba Gua Chan".

 

It made me wonder why would someone teach a system unrooting it, if this is what O'Sensei did. But the ethical side of Aikido seems to be very strong, and if you want to impose a very secific footprint on a martial art in a country that might be the best way to do it. But then why not teach the energy practice that goes with it (for I keep on hearing people saying that in Aikido they speak about energy, but don't really learn it)?

 

I don't know.

[Trunk]

Adyashanti is a "meditation" teacher and Liu taught Bruce an entire system of Taoist meditation. Did I miss something Trunk?

Oh, I thought you guys might've been talking mainly about martial arts.

[Trunk]

Did I miss something Trunk?

My attention is still stuck on this some .. there's more blabbin' to do I think .. could be we're on the same page, maybe a different one, or diff chapt, or book, I dunno. So, commence to blabbin':

 

When I think of 'dicipleship', I think of - basically - a guru-disciple relationship, which can go on in any tradition. Basically, the teacher is able to initiate the student to True Nature. The Guru reveals God to the student.

 

I know there are meditation systems that are passed down within internal martial arts systems, and sometimes the teacher has real development in a number of ways. .. and, yup, - partly through transmission - that gets passed down to students.

 

I'm making the distinction of talking about Realized Teachers, which is what makes it a guru-disciple relationship, and makes a big difference in the nature of the interaction. A couple of examples are Rumi & Shams, Krsna & Arjuna, a number of the Northern Indian / Tibetan relationships, Tilopa-Naropa-Marpa-Milaprepa.

 

So, I'm not just talking about a really good solid very accomplished teacher, I'm talking about studying with a Realized teacher. To me, that's a big difference. And that's the sort of relationship that I connect the term "discipleship" with.

 

I mean no disrespect .. I mean, some teachers of meditation & internals can be seriously righteous, and its totally appropriate - and important for humanity - that some people devote their lives to learning those specific knowledge-art-streams. But when the teacher is Realized, its a different gig, a different relationship.

[Cameron]

I basically agree. Adyashanti puts less emphasis on the teacher student realationship and even says it's not absolutely necissary for enlightenment. However, IMO, these realationships-atleast on some level- are necissary to initate, balance and stabilize the process over the long hall.

 

I also thing there is something to the mind to mind transmission your talking about. Also, teachers act as guides, inspiration and just in general a nice feedback to your own level or process of awakening.

[Trunk]

I also thing there is something to the mind to mind transmission your talking about.

I thing so, too, Queeksdraw.

 

Really, that's all that I'm talking about.

In my mind, if that's not there (to the level of Realization), then its not a Guru-disciple relationship, and the word "disciple" doesn't apply. That's the way I think of the word.

[Cameron]

post deleted

 

Ummm..follow your way..

Edited February 12, 2006 by Cameron

[Trunk]

.. this heavy realationship that you here about in some traditions that you mentioned ... still free to critisize and think for themselves.

 

I think maybe Westerners in genral arent built to be disciples in the traditonal sense and the system(s) as a whole needs to adjust in order to grow in the west.

The inner part is the important part, imo. Its the mind transmission, and some profound re-configurations of consciousness where a student needs to, inwardly, trust and align with the Teacher .. while the student is being deconstructed and reconstructed in some very deep ways. So, there's got to be this trust and devotion to the Teacher, inwardly - in the context of meditation.

 

Its like, the Teacher says "stay still and calm while I re-build your engine" and the student freaks and hits the gas (cause he didn't even know the thing came apart!).

 

What the Guru-disciple relationship looks like on the outside is only important such that it supports the inner work. The outter G-d relationship rules vary amongst cultures, and specific relationships, I expect.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Trunk

[Pietro]

Like someone may study with Bruce and call themselves disciple

 

At the moment Bruce does not take disciples, so I don't think anybody can fairly make such a claim. Yet there are 5 top students right now to whom he teaches more stuff, as he sais, just in case the next plane he takes falls. Still they are not disciples, just students.

 

At the moment his top student (according to Bruce, Boston, 2004) in Tai Ji is Brian Cooper. Who is also one of the 5. Now this is quite interesting, because Brian is good, but not the best technically. There is another Tai Ji instructor in Crete (for example) who is way better technically, at least at mine (and Brian's) eyes. And still Bruce sais "My number one instructor in Tai Ji is Brian". I suspect it has more to do with personal maturity than with anything else. Brian is the same age of Bruce and really does not give a damn about being his top student or his last student, provided he is taught. Most of the other instructor are much younger, and would give an arm to have that level of recognition.

[allan-in-china]

Starting a new thread based on comments in the standing thread about discipleship.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume discipleship is entitling one to any special instruction. I know a few 'disciples' and they don't seem to be getting anything great. I can respect it as a tradition, but look at it logically. Out of all the really great masters, which ones are attributing their greatness to a disciple relationship with their 'master'?

Unfortunately, what i've seen regarding discipleship, it's more about exploitation, control, jealousy and damn near extortion sometimes.

Face it, if you're under someone's wings, you will always be second best and never as good as the original. Look at Ueshiba, Yang Cheng Fu, Wang Zhang Xai, etc. etc. Lineages are ok, but by definition, they have to get watered down through time.

T

Haven't read the other thread yet, but basically it does really depend on the teacher, if I didn't trust the teacher then I wouldn't study with them. The disciple relationship I can walk out of at any time if I want to.

 

The only thing I see is it is about is to ensure quality. I won't be given permission to teach (the inner techniques) until I have reached a certain level of ability, and that is exactly what I believe in. This ensures that I won't be causing any student damage by introducing them to techniques that may cause them great deals of harm that I can't clean up. My teacher wasn't given permission to pass techniques to students and take disciples for many, many years.

 

The under someone's wings idea, I don't really agree with, each person is different with different levels of ability, some students surpass their teachers, but it isn't frequent. The internal arts simply get better with practice, how can a student catch up 25, 50, 75 years? The same is true of meditation.

 

And to be honest our distractions are becoming more and more with the years. Can you imagine Yang Chengfu was sitting on a computer chatting on the tao bums? No, he was practicing.

 

Anyways, basically I wouldn't choose a teacher who I didn't trust.

 

Allan

[allan-in-china]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume discipleship is entitling one to any special instruction. I know a few 'disciples' and they don't seem to be getting anything great. I can respect it as a tradition, but look at it logically. Out of all the really great masters, which ones are attributing their greatness to a disciple relationship with their 'master'?

Like I was saying you need to be selective about the teacher, I figure I have a little to add to the last post.

 

I've noticed an incredible number of people end up chasing people who are in my opinion fakes, that is why I wrote my website I've seen a number of my friends burned, and some still getting burned now even though they don't realise it. I really hope that I can help people find the real thing. Hopefully some people will realise what the real deal is, and the difference between it and what most people are getting.

 

I've spoken to my wife about this, in admittedly quite a great deal of frustration at one time (though it is easing and doesn't bother me half as much as it used to), and she simply replied "Maybe those people studying from them are really getting something out of it. Just because they are not getting the real deal doesn't mean that they are not getting anything. It isn't a part of all of our fate to get real teachings. Maybe they are getting what they need now, maybe they are not ready for the real thing."

 

That was a revelation for me.

 

Ok I know the idea of real teachings is a bit of a bad subject here, but having seen what I've seen I believe it is true.

 

Maybe the 'disciples' you know are just not ready for real instruction and so they chose their teachers. As Wang Xiangzhai said: "You need to have the combination of right teacher, right student, and right art". I'm not going to put up a real defense for myself and I'm not going to take it as an insult, rather just as a general sometimes true comment. I'll just say that this is a step toward what I want to be doing, it isn't the final destination, just part of the path.

 

I also think that being a disciple is something much misunderstood in the west, and also something that has changed a great deal in China. It is true that in the past disciples would look after their teacher, they would work in the teacher's house, they would cook and do many tasks for the teacher, bow everyday or something. Now that isn't really the case, or if it is, that isn't mainstream anymore.

 

Becoming a disciple in modern China is basically benefits, going to the teacher's house for dinner and private instruction with minimal restrictions the only restrictions are for the safety of the public and the student. Another one of my teachers disciples is a disciple to about three different teachers, he gave up the other two because he found better...

 

Although I will say in China you bow to your parents on occasion, like at a wedding you bow to your parents. The word translated to "master" in Chinese originally means "teacher father", it isn't a bad thing, some teachers will take advantage of it, and others have virtue. I've got the benefit of basically being considered a stupid little brother by my taoist teacher, and when he checked out the tai chi chuan teacher I found, he just said "he's good, practice".

 

Which great master can attribute their greatness to a disciple relationship? Ok Wang Xiangzhai (Yiquan founder) was disciple to his uncle Guo Yunshen who was a disciple of Li Luoneng who was a disciple of Dai Longbang who was a disciple of Cao Jiwu who was a disciple of Ji Jike (basically considered founder of xingyiquan). Wu Jianquan (founder of wu style tai chi chuan) was a disciple to Yang Yu. Yang Chengfu was a disciple to his father Yang Jian who was a disciple to his father Yang Luchan (founder of yang style) who was a disciple to (no family relationship) Chen Changxin. Basically every person who has achieved any skill has had a very skilled teacher. (there are definitely going to be exceptions, but not many)

 

If you are talking modern, then there are those who would argue Bruce Frantzis from Liu. Adopted son is basically the same as disciple minus some restrictions which would usually be followed for moral reasons anyway...

 

Which great master hasn't had a great teacher?

 

Disciple seems a very bad word in the west due to western views of the world, yet everyone is willing to call this teacher or that teacher master so and so. I've been very careful on my site just to call everyone Mr. or Mrs. I don't believe in the master concept. I was talking to my wife's guqin teacher, she has just started studying tai chi chuan with our teacher, and I asked her do you have a "teacher father" (shifu) relationship with your teacher or a "teacher" (laoshi) relationship with him. She looked at me strangely and said, they are the same thing, what are you talking about? This is in my opinion just a western misunderstanding of a chinese concept, mistranslated and squeezed into a different culture that isn't built to take the concept...

 

A lot of people assume everything to be watered down over time, and I believe there is some truth in that, but in China people have a tendency to tell amazing stories about their teachers which aren't necessarily true, which are then made even bigger by their students and so on. I basically have the belief that just about anything is possible, but I also keep a critical eye and question everything (that is worth questioning).

 

Allan

Edited February 12, 2006 by allan-in-china