Words of My Perfect Teacher

[C T]

Doesn't a bit of the path/teaching get passed down with some of their... trying to find words for this... energy/karma/nastyness along with it? Or does that path work a bit differently, or does that sort of thing fall away with practice?

If there's clinging, then the student will of course embody some of the teacher's imperfect ways. But one's practice should bear fruit, ideally speaking, otherwise what is the point of investing time and energy in the path? One sure sign that one's practice is bearing fruit is the gradual disintegration of clinging and aversion, which is the most basic, most troublesome fetter that ties one to samsara more than any other obstacle. When clinging and aversion is finally dropped, then nastiness, being the opposite of goodness, becomes meaningless. Then the behaviour of others will not have the power to rub us in such as a way as to leave us carrying their faults wherever we go -- quite silly, really, to be carrying other people's (gurus included) perceived wrongs with us. Its a burden which we can unyoke whenever we decide we have enough weight on our shoulders as such. We dont have to if we choose not to.

 

What we ought to try to do is to carry/uphold the altruistic principle, the bodhisattva ideal, which a teacher, by virtue of being a teacher, represents. He may be the worst example of a teacher, but to keep holding that view is to miss the point altogther. Our view should be expansive enough to see thru the teacher all the way back up to Buddha Shakyamuni himself. If we do not have the capacity to see that far, then its fair that we should continue with diligent practice, and not care too much about identifying faults in others until we ourselves attain buddhahood. Until then, its better to remain concentrated on our own faults and work on them with patience and compassion. Incidentally, learning the proper way to work with a mandala will be very helpful to equip us with the knowledge of where/how to prioritise things that we come upon in life.

 

Once again, i'd like to re-emphasise that perfection in the context of the OP does not equate to absence of faults. It directly infers attributes relating to one's motivation and aspiration. Motivation here means we have to be aware of what thoughts occupy our minds predominantly because these are the thoughts that will likely shape our words and actions. Aspiration relates to developing the inner desire to cultivate diligently so that we may attain the perfect qualities of buddhahood asap in order to stamp out any trailing bits of dualistic conditioning which will pop up now and again to disrupt or flummox us when it comes to acting with the purest motives for the highest good.

 

On a side note, mostly off topic, and nothing to do with the comment above, just the title of this thread. I have been called a "perfect teacher" before. To me that is a warning sign, and I start talking about pedestals and falling off such things, and how they may be not looking at the reality of the situation .

Edited June 25, 2014 by C T

[C T]

That's a bit too obscure for me, so I'll leave you discuss that with someone who's interested.

Sure.

[Jetsun]

But doesn't suffering and pain serve the purpose of helping to awaken the person?

Wanting others to be happy and free of bad things, isn't that like removing their lessons, their motives to reach beyond?

Isn't true compassion to love someone and share in their suffering, but letting be?

Zen master Hakuin says something along those lines,that you should be wary of removing too much of a persons suffering as it can fuel the awakening. I guess it depends on where that understanding comes from and where the person is at, if the whole world thought like that from their own level then I expect the world would be in a right mess.

 

Amma says that although a persons has to work through their own karma that doesn't mean that we can't support each other through that process , which is why she does so much humanitarian work, and says one of the reasons why India is a mess in certain regards is because so many people in the past have held the attitude that a persons suffering is their lot so there is nothing to be done.

[Apech]

Suffering, dukka, is essentially what arises from immersion in conditionality. From not seeing things as they really are. It doesn't have a purpose ... this is a hang over from Christian thinking in that God created a world with pain and sin to test us etc. etc. Dukka does not just mean pain and discomfort but also the unsatisfactory condition of not understanding how things are. With the arising of Bodhicitta you realise how unnecessary this condition of suffering is and you wish for everyone to be free from it. Realising that we are suffering is of course a spur to practice. But it is not the case that it would be a good idea for people to retain suffering ... this would be like wanting people to be a little bit poisoned or a little bit ill.

[gatito]

Zen master Hakuin says something along those lines,that you should be wary of removing too much of a persons suffering as it can fuel the awakening. I guess it depends on where that understanding comes from and where the person is at, if the whole world thought like that from their own level then I expect the world would be in a right mess.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the actual quote please Jetsun because I think that you may have misrepresented the thrust of his point (please note the may).

 

Amma says that although a persons has to work through their own karma that doesn't mean that we can't support each other through that process , which is why she does so much humanitarian work, and says one of the reasons why India is a mess in certain regards is because so many people in the past have held the attitude that a persons suffering is their lot so there is nothing to be done.

 

Although this is very much a relative truth, I'd hope that even hard-core Buddhists would agree that this is a wise default position to adopt, at least up to the point that ultimate Truth has been realised (and perhaps afterwards if that's a way that liberated innate happiness freely chooses to express itself in the world)?

[gatito]

 

 

That's a bit too obscure for me, so I'll leave you discuss that with someone who's interested.

Sure.

 

That was rude of me CT.

 

I apologise.

[C T]

 

That was rude of me CT.

 

I apologise.

 

no offence taken... no apology required.

[C T]

Back to the topic....

 

Ken McLeod on 'Relationship with teachers':

 

"So many things need to come together: where one is in one’s life, whether the window for spiritual practice is opening or closing, the personalities of the two individuals involved, chance circumstances. I have no prescription for finding a teacher. Look, explore, interview, and, above all else, use your own good sense. Don’t rely on reputation alone.

 

Deep in Western culture, especially in America, is a tendency to look for perfection in our teachers. Tibetans don’t see their teachers the same way. I was at a conference with a number of Asian and Western teachers, and one of the Tibetan teachers said simply, “My teacher is Buddha.” It was very clear that he had no expectation that his ‘teacher’ was a perfect being but this was how he regarded the relationship, this was the source for his spiritual guidance and inspiration. It was a subtle point, not said with the usual rhetoric, and I found it very helpful.

 

My teacher, Kalu Rinpoche was highly accomplished, quite extraordinary. Did I learn everything he had to teach? Not even close. But he was my primary teacher. I’ve done a lot of guru yoga and similar practices with Kalu Rinpoche as the focus, and I don’t see any contradiction between seeing your teacher as Buddha as well as a human being. Remember, Buddha means to be awake. You have to see your teacher as being awake. If you don’t, why are you studying with him or her?"

[gatito]

"<snip>

 

You have to see your teacher as being awake. If you don’t, why are you studying with him or her?"

 

Excellent point.

 

If the teacher isn't a buddha - how can they teach the Truth?

[Jetsun]

 

I'd be interested in seeing the actual quote please Jetsun because I think that you may have misrepresented the thrust of his point (please note the may).

 

I have been looking through my books and can't find the quote unfortunately, it could be that I misunderstood him.

 

But another way of looking at it (borrowing an analogy from Adyashanti) is that if you are in a prison and you make the prison really nice and get a load of nice furnishings and decorations you can make a semi comfortable life in there and convince yourself and hypnotise yourself into believing that being there isn't too bad; whereas if your prison is uncomfortable, disturbing and generally unbearable you are more likely to look with a much greater urgency to try to find a way out.

[gatito]

Thanks Jetsun.

[Apech]

Depend on the teaching and not on the teacher;
Depend on the meaning and not on the words;
Depend on the depth and not on the surface;
Depend on wisdom and not on concepts.

~ The 14th Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche (Shamarpa)

 

... just found this thought it was relevant.

[gatito]

Why do you think it's relevant?

[Apech]

Why do you think it's relevant?

 

 

The OP was asking about strange stories in the book Words of my Perfect Teacher and here Shamar Rinpoche is saying look beneath the surface basically, such the meaning and not the words ... so in reading the stories you should look for a basic principle being described and not get caught up in the illustrative images. Also interestingly (considering Guru Yoga) he says depend on the teaching and not the teacher! So ... that's why I thought it relevant.

[Simple_Jack]

Gatito, how many "Direct-Path Advaita" teachers influenced by Ramana Maharshi, from his contemporaries to current day teachers, were or are on his level of cultivation attainment? Likewise, it's not mandatory for someone to be a buddha in order to teach the buddhadharma, hell it's not even absolutely necessary for someone to be an arya, in order to assume a teaching position. As long as that individual is teaching according to the sutras, shastras, etc., that qualifies as relying on the testimony of the Buddha (and arya-sangha), as a form of valid perception (i.e. pramana). This need not concern you, since you do not consider the words of the Buddha as authoritative, ascribing instead to the views of Advaita and Trika.

[gatito]

So was he a buddha?

[gatito]

^^^ that was @ Apech

[Apech]

So was he a buddha?

 

 

Who?

[gatito]

 

 

Who?

Mipham Chokyi Lodro

[Apech]

Mipham Chokyi Lodro

 

Mu.

[gatito]

 

Mu.

So you've no idea if he was a buddha or not?

[gatito]

Gatito, how many "Direct-Path Advaita" teachers influenced by Ramana Maharshi, from his contemporaries to current day teachers, were or are on his level of cultivation attainment?

 

Many of them I would guess - but as I never met the guy (nor even watched any of his videos), I can't be certain.

 

Likewise, it's not mandatory for someone to be a buddha in order to teach the buddhadharma, hell it's not even absolutely necessary for someone to be an arya, in order to assume a teaching position. As long as that individual is teaching according to the sutras, shastras, etc., that qualifies as relying on the testimony of the Buddha (and arya-sangha), as a form of valid perception (i.e. pramana).

 

That's why I don't place much weight on the words of teachers of Tibetan Buddhism. Don't you think that they should actually know about what they're teaching from direct experience (i.e. that they should be buddhas before they start trying to teach buddhism)?

 

I think that being a buddha is the most basic teaching qualification.

 

This need not concern you, since you do not consider the words of the Buddha as authoritative, ascribing instead to the views of Advaita and Trika.

 

I've said several times that I can see no conflict between the reported teachings of Siddhartha and those of the Rishis.

 

Why do you believe that you're in a position to determine my viewpoint and/or what concerns me?

 

Are you a buddha Simple_Jack?

 

Because if you aren't, I'm not actually interested in either your opinions or your advice – especially after seeing the piece of advice that you recently offered to CT:-

 

Eat my dick.

[Simple_Jack]

Basically, when you're not subsuming buddhadharma under the authority of the Upanishads, the Upanishads are an authority over and above the buddhadharma. Why else would you have waged a smear campaign against its teachings? Do I need to link some of those posts in order to remind you?

[Apech]

So you've no idea if he was a buddha or not?

 

That's not what I meant of course and I think you know that.

[Simple_Jack]

If being a buddha was a prerequisite for anyone to teach other than Gautama Buddha, why are there many sutras, where his disciples assume a teaching role? They needn't be arahants as in some cases of devas.