Teaching Dharma - Why?

"Why not? Haven't you ever figure out how to do something (fix the brakes on your car, cook a great quiche) and next day you just can't wait to recount how you did it, and help your brother/neighbor/friend do it next weekend?

-ona

Maybe I have experienced something like that but I didn't then set up a web site and a business and a marketing plan to promote myself as a quiche chef.

Chris, what's the worst case scenario? Do you have some specific ones in mind?

Haven't you ever figure out how to do something (fix the brakes on your car, cook a great quiche) and next day you just can't wait to recount how you did it, and help your brother/neighbor/friend do it next weekend?
I don't think everyone who reaches out to teach is some kind of manipulative self-deluded bastard with a massive ego. I tend to think people generally have very good intentions, and act from a decent heart. Even when their acts harm others, I still think they tend to have good intentions, even if self-deluded. So it's hard to get angry about.



-ona

This is a good point though. This is exactly why I say it always has to come back to the student. A good student can learn from a bad teacher, well intentioned or not. A bad student might be able to learn from a great teacher. See, I told you I can be conservative. Personal responsibility

But seriously--- people who want to set themselves up as teachers will, plain and simple. I think we've established there are myriad reasons why they might do so, and myriad reasons why the may appear to "succeed", in terms of attracting and retaining students. Many probably do it for many reasons at once. Haven't you ever figured out how to make a quiche, gone out and tried to help your friends do it out of simple enthusiasm, AND enjoyed the ego-strokes when everyone compliments your quiche baking skills?

I made a really good quiche once but everyone ate it up and then I lost the recipe.

OMG I think I totally agree with you Jake.

The fact is, a (good?) student learns from everything. Every movement, interaction, person, place, thing, experience, perception is "fodder for the meditation machine" as my main teacher is fond of saying. And every (etc listed previously) is an expression of divine consciousness or whatever you want to call it. In another way, "every moment is equally worthy of mindfulness," as another teacher I spend occasional time with once had us ponder.

Now that said, I wouldn't be spouting dharma crap (see above) if I hadn't gone to those teachers and had them point things out that I would otherwise have wandered by without seeing or missed due to obsessing about something else.

PS, I put "(good?)" there for a reason - because I don't know. What's a good student? Do I mean experienced students? Dedicated students? I have no idea. Your thoughts appreciated.

PS, I put "(good?)" there for a reason - because I don't know. What's a good student? Do I mean experienced students? Dedicated students? I have no idea. Your thoughts appreciated.


-ona

A 'good' student is relentless, and cannot be denied learning from everyone and everything: W's 'pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.' [cf that bit about 'bad teachers' / good students, with special reference to W] A good student won't stop, won't quit-- there's no telling what will be useful in terms of specifics; but in general, the most useful teacher will be perceptive about the student and open to inspired improvisation-- more concerned with effectively communicating to the student than with being acknowledged by anyone for their brilliance, or correctness, or charisma. Turned at a slight angle-- a good teacher will not be seduced by the gratitude, or flattery, that students often offer up in lieu of slogging ahead with the change that their practice demands.

However, one sees a great deal more verbiage from 'goody two-shoes' students; and certainly, from a fair number of teachers who overestimate their abilities. This seems more characteristic of the self-anointed bereft of an ongoing relationship to their own teachers...

OMG I think I totally agree with you Jake.
The fact is, a (good?) student learns from everything. Every movement, interaction, person, place, thing, experience, perception is "fodder for the meditation machine" as my main teacher is fond of saying. And every (etc listed previously) is an expression of divine consciousness or whatever you want to call it. In another way, "every moment is equally worthy of mindfulness," as another teacher I spend occasional time with once had us ponder.
Now that said, I wouldn't be spouting dharma crap (see above) if I hadn't gone to those teachers and had them point things out that I would otherwise have wandered by without seeing or missed due to obsessing about something else.


-ona

hahaha ... yes. And so there's one criteria for "good teacher" we've found: someone who brings out the "good" in the student. Because this (practice, life, realization) takes everything on some level, a total commitment. Or at least, the wisdom that you take is equal to the wisdom that you make, or something. You can't be a part-time practitioner and expect full-time fruits.

A 'good' student is relentless, and cannot be denied learning from everyone and everything: W's 'pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.' [...] there's no telling what will be useful in terms of specifics; but in general, the most useful teacher will be perceptive about the student and open to inspired improvisation-- more concerned with effectively communicating to the student than with being acknowledged by anyone for their brilliance, or correctness, or charisma. Turned at a slight angle-- a good teacher will not be seduced by the gratitude, or flattery, that students often offer up in lieu of slogging ahead with the change that their practice demands.

-kategowen

Very. Nice.

That's the key to this whole thing for me, and I say this from experience, not from theory: whatever experience I have a hard time seeing as a learning experience, that's where I need to look, that's where I've really got an opportunity to learn. The sticking points. The obstacles. That's where I need to take a closer look. The shift from complacency/oblivion in this regard to manifesting at least a sincere intention to look at these murky areas is the single factor that made my practice really come alive, far more than any technique or even coaching. It was this shift in attitude. I need to remember this. It is allowing this attitude to eat and digest every last drop of every single moment that moves my practice forward.

"This seems more characteristic of the self-anointed bereft of an ongoing relationship to their own teachers..."

Well, there's something useful. Every teacher learned from some other people. Often there is some indication of this on their website ("so and so studied with Guru X for 15 years, and has been asked to teach by him"). Or there might be testimonials from colleagues, saying how good a teacher so and so is. Or, in parallel, some teacher's websites will list their students who have been asked to teach. Those seem like pretty simple ways to check a teacher's references.

Man, I really think Brad's been spiraling out these last few years. Unfortunately the whole ass-kicking punk-rock bodhisattva shtick has its own double edge.

I mean, if I read that last quote coming from some other pop culture writer, I would already think they were vain, a little deluded, and paranoid. Coming from a supposed expert dharma practitioner, it's just sad.

Yeah, I read it. Frankly, one hears that 'I'm just concerned that a self-selected clique is going to have undue influence without fairly representing outside voices' from the bruised vanities of the uninvited all the time, in every context. It's the standard line. I mean, look, Noah Levine and Josh Korda are going to this thing. Josh mentioned this week that he was going to a big Buddhist teachers conference; the most prominent thing on his mind seemed to be that he was kind of apprehensive to be in a room with so many super laid-back West Coast types. If there is indeed some kind of Continental Congress aspect to this thing, he didn't mention it. But in any case, my point is that I can think of at least two tattooed punk rock freaks who are in attendance right now. So the objective concern, that voices are not being heard, can only be true in a realllly subtle way.

So what's left beside that? The fact that these people will emerge with some orthodoxy, some consensus that sands off interesting edges, that will be imposed on others? Brad admits himself he doesn't have any actual evidence that this is the point, aside from a general sense that that's just what happens at big industry conferences. So if that's just the nature of industry conferences, why get particularly upset about this one?

The post is trying to drive home this concept that the American Buddhist establishment is being close-minded, dogmatic, conservative, not punk rock enough by holding this particular conference, with this particular agenda and these particular attendees. But the ONLY actually factually notable thing I can see cited about it is that Brad Warner wasn't invited. Listen, for all I know he HAS pissed off the establishment. I'm sure he thinks it's because he's a non-conformist truth-teller. But through that entire post, I just keep seeing really flimsy veneers for a basic deeply wounded vanity that he's been coasting on for a good while now.

You mean like this? 'One of their retreats offers “nonsectarian universal wisdom for people of all backgrounds” so that’s perhaps the direction of the future of Buddhism. Mild, deodorized, mediocre, watered down, beige, tasteless and certainly not too challenging. And yes the “beige” has more than one meaning.'

I mean, obviously I don't really see why or how that could happen. But devil's advocate? The only way it would affect my practice is if they held down my teacher while he was there and lobotomized him.

The bulk of Western practice is so decentralized. We don't have creeds and articles of faith. We don't have loyalty oaths. So this imagined beige orthodoxy (and I must stress how ludicrous and self-serving I find the leap from the existence of this meeting to such a reductivist, bad-faith reading of these people's priorities) will not have very long tentacles, even if Tricycle becomes the official party mouthpiece. There's not a single one of my practitioner friends who reads Tricycle. The new Garrison Cabal would have to send their agents all the way to Thailand, to Chithurst, to Amaravati, and extract a vow of orthodoxy from the Ajahns whose talks I listen to.

If you wanted to continue your advocatus diabolism, you might say, well what about new practitioners, or people interested in the dharma? What about when somebody goes looking for their own path and the first google result is the official beige creed of the American Buddhist High Council? My answer is: it'd be more or less the same as it is now. Practitioners always have to fight against the stream. Sturgeon's law applies here: 90% of everything is crud. First you're born into Western society, and you have to fight to think there's something wrong. Then you fight to find Buddhism. But then once you find Buddhism, you still have to struggle to find a practice that suits you, you still have to struggle to find a good teacher, you still have to struggle to associate with diligent practitioners, and you still have to struggle with yourself every step of the way. These are all against the stream. The dharma is always there for people who are looking for it, and there's always a thousand 'dharma burgers', too. Gey gezunterheyt.

Yeah, whence my pull quote.

I mean, look, in response to the blog article in general: there's a reason that none of my practitioner friends read Tricycle. If that author just wants to rail against the forces of conservatism in Western Buddhism, I wish them all the luck in the world. I, of all people, have very little respect for any element of monoculture, mediocrity, or lowest-common-denominator thinking in my practice. You want to talk about pretentiousness, conservatism? Go nuts. I'm right there with you. But it's a good many bridges too far when you start intimating that Brad Warner has been purposefully excluded from this meeting—indeed, that its entire strategy of rollout and publicity was so secretive and sketchy just so that nobody would notice he wasn't invited (until it was too late!)—because of a conspiracy to unleash a new homogenized, boring Buddhism on the world. It's a conference. Conferences are usually at least 45% bullshit. All the fight-the-power trappings around that fact just make Brad look like someone who devotes far too much energy to how he is perceived on the international stage.

"The bulk of Western practice is so decentralized. We don't have
creeds and articles of faith. We don't have loyalty oaths. So this
imagined beige orthodoxy (and I must stress how ludicrous and
self-serving I find the leap from the existence of this meeting to such a
reductivist, bad-faith reading of these people's priorities) will not
have very long tentacles, even if Tricycle becomes the official party
mouthpiece. ...you might say, well what
about new practitioners, or people interested in the dharma? What about
when somebody goes looking for their own path and the first google
result is the official beige creed of the American Buddhist High
Council? My answer is: it'd be more or less the same as it is now. ...The
dharma is always there for people who are looking for it, and there's
always a thousand 'dharma burgers', too. "

Said far better than I could. I agree 100%.

Turns out Warner WAS invited to the big Budhhist teacher gathering:

http://hardcorezen.blogspot.com/2011/06/appologies-to-garrison-institute.html

He apologized here, and then reiterated his concerns about the meeting.