teaching to the audience

I have rewritten and deleted this post several times, because I am not quite sure how to make my question clear. I'll try once more.

In your own practice or among colleagues/students/teachers, have you found that it is useful to change how you explain something to suit the person you are speaking to, even if that means you are not being completely honest?

There are things I will tell a student who is a relative beginner that are not untrue, but are only small parts of what they will eventually figure out, or perhaps stated in a way that will make sense given their current perspective or beliefs, but will probably not be relevant or true in six months or a year. Heck, they may even be untrue in the big picture. But it seems to me what they need to focus on at the moment might be rung one or two of the ladder, so to speak, rather than worrying about what's at the top of the ladder.

In my own practice my teachers have tended to teach me this way, offering pointers or practices that are relevant to what I am stuck on, but perhaps quite limited in explanation. The idea was to let me figure it out for myself, without giving me a blow-by-blow explanation of what to expect, because if I heard that I would try to make it happen as they described instead of looking at the problem.

This can be a bit mushroom-culture-like, but I tend to think it's actually quite beneficial.

It came to mind reading Adyashanti's book (The End of Your World) the other day, because he is quite non-specific about his personal experiences and maps and models and such, but states clearly that this is because if he spells out exactly how he experienced things it tends to make students strive to imitate that rather than look at what's going on in their own experience.

I'm not sure this version of the post is any clearer than my previous three attempts, but does anyone get what I'm poking around at? Thoughts?

My teacher with the longest tenure [just under 10 years, now] drove me mad with his noncommittal, evasive, and decline-to-state answers to the sort of questions we all-about-transparency, direct, forthright Californio spiritual seekers like to ask, and with what seemed to be an overly modest self-presentation. I thought it was because he was a Brit; I thought maybe it was some kind of Tibetan Buddhist convention; I thought it was because the questions were being badly phrased.

A year or so in, he said something about 'not wanting to pre-empt the student's experience;' it didn't exactly resolve my irritated puzzlement, at the time. But it did give me something to think about for the next several years. With the publication of his most recent book, Wisdom Eccentrics, I am at last beginning to understand how profoundly responsible and responsive that approach is. This recent book is all about his experience with his own two main teachers, in the 1970s and '80s-- and they are hilarious, hair-raising, confounding, and illuminating.

There are two kinds of teachers-- the 'spiritual friend' who is more on a level with the student, and who can answer questions about practice and about doctrine. And then there is the Master, who is capable of all kinds of benign and shocking ways of showing you 'the Nature of Mind' so that you can experience it in the moment, for yourself. There is no telling what means may be used; such a teacher has to orchestrate events on the basis of knowing you better than you know yourself-- and you have to want it, and entrust the process to the teacher, in a totally unreasonable way. Which is why commitment is required on both sides, and why it can take over a decade of mutual scoping-out before the commitment is true.

This post probably seems fairly tangential to your question, but I think the heart of the matter is that probably none of us is qualified to act as a Master, only as 'spiritual friends.' And as such, and given that we're not representatives of any one well-established tradition with spelled-out roles and rules, the guidelines are going to have to be, to be good friends; sometimes what friends find necessary is to deflect ignorant and unintentionally rude questions that transgress boundaries. Somehow in spiritual matters, we feel we have to give our most accurate, soul-searching answer -- to questions that far overreach the degree of mutual trust, knowledge, and intimacy that exists between the questioner and ourselves. If it were the nitty-gritty details of your marriage that were being asked about, would you answer?

This may be totally useless; I may be imagining a scenario very unlike your actual experience...

Well, it is possible for two people to agree on dropping their guards and speaking truth in ways that would not be appropriate or helpful without this special, agreed-upon setting. This is what "pointing out" instruction is all about. This is where there are no secrets, no fear of pre-empting someone's development, no regard for circumstances, no taboos, no exceptions. I've been involved in this kind of interaction a few times, with mixed outcomes - while simple, it's definitely not as easy as it sounds. (Without the explicit mutual agreement, this is the Master/student thing, and I find it highly disagreeable).

Outside this explicit, mutually agreed setting where speaking directly is appropriate, I don't know. I prefer clarity and detail over dark hints and half-truths every time. My sentiment is, we're all adults and it just doesn't do to protect people from themselves - that's awfully presumptuous. If I say something to someone, and they don't ever interact with me again - so what? This is not something to build up my self-image as the perfect spiritual friend, after all. If I were doing it towards that goal, I'd be doing it deeply wrong, anyway.

Thus, I'm thankful you called me out on my Zen Master Mode on the S.R. forum recently, Ona. Imagine what could have happened if you'd worried for days how to let me know without pre-empting my development.

Cheers,
Florian

LOL - but Florian, in that particular case, I know you and you are in a place where I don't give a shit what you think and I know you don't give a shit what I think either. (ETA: said with a sassy grin, in case it isn't clear!) And I actually thought it was not inappropriate and rather funny (your Zen master mode), but I'd never seen you in that mode on that forum before! Besides I feel slightly maternally protective of the guy you were whacking.

But there's a perfect example. Let's take a student who is an intermediate level meditator and asks a question about how to do something goal oriented with his practice. Now for some students, I might emphasize the need to drop goals, especially if they were a really driven person who was super goal oriented and who had enough insights or proto-insights that the effort-driven practice was starting to weaken and become useless, and needed to be dropped. For another student, they might actually be kind of lax and dependent and not as driven as I think might be helpful for them, so I might suggest they ramp up the effort and get really intensely goal oriented. Even though in the end the goal oriented/effort-driven type of practice is not important and indeed undermines itself and becomes useless, in some cases I think a person needs to be pointed into doing just that, finding that dead end, because it will help them.

So I would be "dishonest" in either case, because I would not necessarily explain the why and wherefore, but try to convince them to do what will help them see through the falsehood themselves, in time.

It's like in horseback riding, where a teacher might make you ride leaning way back or holding your hands far apart - not because it is correct in the end, but because it helps break you of a habit of leaning forward or clenching your arms together.

Does that make sense? ETA: Is that being dishonest, mushroomy?

Responsibility is an art and that's what makes it hard.

It's like giving a boy a whittling knife. You know sometimes he will cut himself. No one who owns a knife has never accidently cut themselves. But you do want to make sure the boy knows how to cut away from his body so that those slips won't cause serious injury.

Same think if you are giving a woman mind-related instructions. You know that she will take whatever you say and over-use it in some way. Maybe trying to force some process that should evolve naturally, maybe becoming nihlistic, maybe becoming too renunciate, or maybe becoming too indulgent because "everything is empty". But you want to have some confidence that misuse isn't going to seriously hinder that woman's development, either because they are grounded enough for the instruction or you are there to help correct misinterpretation.

I actually find myself biased toward the side of caution. Maybe that's patronizing to the other person, but I feel it is also a reflection that I'm not in any formal teaching role and there isn't a certainty that I'll be able to correct any mistakes that I was part of instigating. I really don't believe that if someone takes your good advice and then fucks up their life, then it's all their fault. No, I don't think it would be my fault either, but I just see how having the teacher have total deniability is a slippery slope and ultimately a road to ruin.

At the heart of this is an observation I've made time and time again: being a "teacher" will be a way to stoke one's ego, a source of attention, recognition, identity, power, authority, fame, wealth, attraction, emotional indulgence, drama, entertainment, etc. etc. It will happen, but it may not become solidified. That said, it's pretty human to get sucked into all of those pleasures. The last thing most people need is an excuse to ignore responsibility. Those pleasures can distract the teacher from the audience until it becomes all about the teacher.

It certainly is that way in my experience. I can feel in my day to day interactions that I want to be seen as an expert, caring, someone who will speak the unspoken truth, that should be given authority, etc. I'm not talking in a big overt way, I'm talking in terms of a "tainting" of the experience, at the level of word choice and body language. If there is a chance I might be wrong, I'll try to cover it up in nuance. If there is a chance I might not have the best opinion, I'll try to cover it up in nuance. And of course, when I see myself doing that, I'll say so or communicate that awareness, which sucks and is humbling, but it's because I know that not calling myself on it is ultimately the road to ruin.

And I see it when I try to give advice. I might think I have some advice, but I also feel my lack of certainty either in the advice or how that advice might be taken. If my communication isn't responsive to that latter, I don't feel comfortable with providing the former. So I can caveat or alter the advice so there isn't any lingering concern.

Again, it's a subtle thing, but I can see the dynamic even as I'm writing these words.

Ultimately, teaching is all about the audience, if you ask me. When someone is ready, you hit them with a ton of bricks. But you don't hit them with it just because the bricks are "true".

@Kate - That's useful, too. My recent teachers have been people I would literally trust my soul to. I trust them beyond words. And you are right - in that context they can say whatever needs to be said. A very few friends also fall into that category. But I have had teachers in the past who were not in that category, and I had to break off the student-teacher relationship. It makes a huge difference, that trust. Your last question speaks to that. Thus there are things I will speak freely about to certain people in private conversation, but not on forums or to someone I don't have that kind of relationship with. Not just because it is personal or too detailed or whatever, but because it might just be confusing and weird for strangers to read. That respect for boundaries doesn't seem to be universally accepted - heck not even just in regards to spiritual questions. Look at the kind of intimate details kids share on public Facebook pages and such!

Ultimately, teaching is all about the audience, if you ask me. When someone is ready, you hit them with a ton of bricks. But you don't hit them with it just because the bricks are "true".


-shargrol

This is what's been on my mind. Bingo.

what struck me in the initial post is this:
It doesn't really matter what Adyashanti tells his students about his experience. Because, by doing that, he is not giving them his actual experience, he is only handing them some words, which the students then turn into words and thoughts in their own minds. The experience itself can't be communicated in a lecture or interview. What he is talking about is something hidden beind a veil of smoke and how to evaporate that smoke is something each person has to figure out how to do for themselves, right?
And this made me start to understand what is meant here by a "pointer," I hadn't quite gotten that before. Of course you can't speak yourself or someone else into awakening but through some kind of subtle pointing you can maybe be nudged there a little.

Okay, but. On the other hand, Daniel Ingram would say: "I know exactly what enlightenment is and how to get there. It's not mysterious or hidden. All you have to do is sit and do these specific things, and these specific things will happen to you in a certain order. Ask any question you want because the answers are all available." Boom.

Lately I wonder about what we are looking for here. Is it to know something? Is it to really get down to bare reality and to somehow understand who we are and what is going on? Or, are we looking for ways to just have as much peace and intimacy we can moment to moment until we die? I go back and forth from the former to the latter but I must admit that the latter is the dominate force in my life.

If I have a passion, then, to be empty and intimate, I'm beginning to believe that that passion itself will lead me to that very thing. For me, in this life. Now.

Part of this is keeping my ears open for pointers. These pointers can come from anywhere. However, I think the best ones, the most effective ones just appear constantly and non verbally before us in direct proportion to our ability to let go and surrender.

Wow! There's so much good stuff being brought up in this thread. I feel the only thing I can really add is encouragement.

What makes me happy is that those of you who are looking after students (and I don't mean that in a belittling sort of way... perhaps I should just say "helping") are taking the time to think about your approach to teaching. Not only are you thinking about it quietly to yourselves, but also getting some of your questions out in the open so others can chime in. One of the most important things I've learned as a counselor in training is that it is not a good idea to make insular decisions. Collaborating with colleagues and mentors whenever possible is such a great safeguard not only for ourselves, but especially for those we are trying to help.

I'll add that I think teachers have a responsibility to provide their students with as much information as is needed to gain informed consent. Such as, "I'm going to have you practice X and Y, because your concentration is lacking, and this will help it get stronger. Strong concentration is needed for some of the other work we're going to do. But if I explain that other work now, the instructions will probably blend together with the ones you should be practicing now, and the results won't be as good. What do you think?" In phrasing it this way, I'm not being cryptic, but I'm also electing to not give all of the information. It's a nice balance, even though it is a bit therapist-like. Oh well.

Keep up the conversation!

Also, Mike - I loved your post. That's all.

-Jackson

@ florian-- yeah, the master/student relationship is definitely not for everyone. That's part of why establishing it takes so long-- plenty of time for the student to discover that he or she is NOT up for it, generally or specifically. In the beginning, it can seem like a romantic proposition: the master has some magical thing called realization, and the power to confer it on the student. All the student has to do is want it really, really bad; jump through a few hoops to show sincerity and determination; and then the master gives him the secret recipe.

We moderns are allergic to hierarchies, and it's something we haven't thought through to the logical conclusion: which is that our best and highest development is going to be merely a pumped-up version of ourselves. When that gets too depressing, some get interested in fairy tales about the magic conferring of enlightenment by the guru as a kind of divine accident. And pray to get lucky.

The true master/student relationship [and 'master' here is to be understood as one who has mastery of the process, and of teaching-- and not as indicating a feudal relationship to the student] is an alternative to being stuck with our own random abilities and experiences, and praying for the unicorn. It requires a great deal of the student, and that is not often described. It requires persistence in the face of discovering just how confused you are; this is not enjoyable-- we like to think well of ourselves. In a way, the articulation of 'the 12 steps' describes this sort of thing better than most 'spiritual' literature.

I'm starting to ramble, and my last post disappeared to a lost connection to the forum, so here's the second attempt...

LOL - but Florian, in that particular case, I know you and you are in a place where I don't give a shit what you think and I know you don't give a shit what I think either. (ETA: said with a sassy grin, in case it isn't clear!) And I actually thought it was not inappropriate and rather funny (your Zen master mode), but I'd never seen you in that mode on that forum before! Besides I feel slightly maternally protective of the guy you were whacking.

-ona

It can be appropriate and funny, and still be a dumb schtick in the long run.

But there's a perfect example. Let's take a student who is an intermediate level meditator and asks a question about how to do something goal oriented with his practice.

-ona

Right. In that case, it's not about seeing the truth at all, but about what to do. So your initial question, "is it mushroomy to give step-by-step instructions" doesn't even apply: when teaching someone how to make pancakes or how to ride, or how to meditate, or what to wish for, it makes perfect sense to focus on developing one particular skill at a time.

So I would be "dishonest" in either case, because I would not necessarily explain the why and wherefore, but try to convince them to do what will help them see through the falsehood themselves, in time.

-ona

I don't know... how can you be sure they want to see through their falsehood themselves, in time, if you never talk about it? Maybe they just want to have a bit of fun, and your behind-the-scenes machinations to get them enlightened are against their interests?

Unless they really, really want to get enlightened, isn't it disingenuous to make them do exercises that will generally make it harder for them to ignore the truth that's staring them in the face?

I mean, it's all well and good for us to assume that everybody of course wants to get enlightened - but is that even the case? Who the hell are we to decide what's good for other grown-up, adult persons?

Cheers,
Florian

Ultimately, teaching is all about the audience, if you ask me. When someone is ready, you hit them with a ton of bricks. But you don't hit them with it just because the bricks are "true".


-shargrol

You know, you can't just swing around a ton of bricks at the end of your arm. That's a fantasy many teachers, even, seem to indulge in - but really, it's quite transparently self-aggrandizing, isn't it?

The bricks are coming our way anyway, the entire ton of it, whether we're "ready" or not (and what do you want to prepare for?) and all we can do, really, is to indicate this in various ways (by meditating, or waving and pointing and yelling, or whatever) to those people who might be interested in knowing about it so they can face the bricks coming their way instead of having their backs turned on them.

Our holy texts even go on and on about this. The pali canon for example contains insistent imagery about mountains closing in. Jesus had a thing about needing an entire mustard-seed worth of faith to set a mountain in motion (that's a lot of faith. Can you make mustard plant out of faith, without the seed? If not, forget about the mountain.). How explicit can it get?

Cheers,
Florian

We moderns are allergic to hierarchies

-kategowen

Until you show me an example to the contrary, I'll say that we moderns are mumbling under our breaths while busily supporting the hierarchies.

and it's something we haven't thought through to the logical conclusion: which is that our best and highest development is going to be merely a pumped-up version of ourselves.

Again, that's because we support the hierarchies, not in spite of it. We don't want to think that the guy at the top is not held up by anything we aren't held up by, because that would make it hard to continue holding them up.

When that gets too depressing, some get interested in fairy tales about the magic conferring of enlightenment by the guru as a kind of divine accident. And pray to get lucky.

Exactly. Another hierarchy. Not a trace of allergy.

The true master/student relationship [and 'master' here is to be understood as one who has mastery of the process, and of teaching-- and not as indicating a feudal relationship to the student] is an alternative to being stuck with our own random abilities and experiences, and praying for the unicorn. It requires a great deal of the student, and that is not often described. It requires persistence in the face of discovering just how confused you are; this is not enjoyable-- we like to think well of ourselves. In a way, the articulation of 'the 12 steps' describes this sort of thing better than most 'spiritual' literature.

And yet, the 12 step programmes contain commitment to a higher power, guru, or unicorn, to get lucky. (I'm not saying this is bad, mind you. It's a starting point as good as any). Again, no allergic reaction.

In the end, it's discovering just how confused the master is that often does the trick, I suspect, never having been in such a relationship myself.

Cheers,
Florian

In the end, it's discovering just how confused the master is that often does the trick, I suspect, never having been in such a relationship myself.



-florian

-- that's the heart of the matter, I think. Any speculation, no matter how plausibly logical-- and consonant with preferences that are so deeply embedded we don't know we have them-- is trumped by direct experience.

What you say is absolutely true on the 'horizontal' plane of 'all humans created equal'/everyone his or her own authority. This is the realm of learning skills and behaving as skillfully as possible, rewards for good behavior, suffering for bad behavior, where the binary logic of yes or no applies.

The 'direct experience' of which I attempt to speak is of another realm, which could be metaphorically called 'the vertical'-- and is not accessible by any amount of horizontal distance covered. It's accessible by recognizing the invisible 'gates' that Zen talks about-- and stepping through into 'nowhere.' It gets spoken about in poetic, evocative, paradoxical terms because that is the best chance of jolting something awake in the hearer: it's not something produced by the perfect logical argument.

And, unfortunately, to say so sounds irritatingly evasive to the quotidian, logical, pragmatic mind. Contrariwise, the logic of quotidian pragmatism is maddeningly clumsy and obtuse to those infected by glimpses of the 'vertical.' It is those glimpses that enable recognizing a Master when one is encountered. Recognition is a paradoxical act that we both can and cannot 'do.' No one can do it for us, and yet we cannot say exactly how we do it, or replicate it at will.

I would be surprised if any of us have never been in relationships where status, authority and hierarchy are part of the relationship. Obviously this is a part of human culture - from our interactions with shop clerks to policemen to our bosses to our parents, professors, schoolteachers, fellow students, doctors, children, etc. We may be very conscious of it or not, we may like or dislike it in certain circumstances, or dislike or like specific forms of it based on past experiences (ie a domineering father may make us tend to dislike domineering authority figures; or may make us look to such for self-esteem, etc. depending on our tendencies).

I'm not sure there is anything "wrong" with these hierarchies per se, and I do not think they can be eliminated, though people can and do use them as excuses for abusive or manipulative behavior and that's not nice.

@Tomo - such circumstances rarely stop me from spouting off a random opinion.