A Dharma Student's Bill of Rights

Well, Ron is already claiming a kind of certification, namely (something like) lineage, probably the most common kind of teaching certification in buddhist circles. Quoting from alohadharma:
"Ron was authorized to teach Vipassana by his teacher Kenneth Folk, who teaches in the Burmese insight tradition."

I'm afraid i think a broader kind of certification is unlikely to find much success. If you see the situation in new-age circles, every little practice seems to have it's own certification. In non-clinical hypnosis, the situation seems to be a little better, but only a little

Think about this - you can find a doctor from a list of certified doctors, but don't you prefer to ask your friends or colleagues who they go to and whether they have a recommendation? Then you feel some trust that the doctor isn't just trained, but has a good manner or is very good in his specialty, etc. The AMA certification proves he passed college, but doesn't mean he's attentive, caring, or particularly genius.

That said, I think it is great if teachers include on their websites/materials what they consider the role of teacher/student to be, the principles they uphold or aim to, etc. - along the lines of the beginnings of this thread. Then students can see if that is a match for the kind of relationship they want and lets them understand what the expectations are.

"I think the hardest thing for me to figure out is a teacher's/student's bill of rights when it comes to dark night stuff. How much early warning? How much should a student spin in their own contraction? How much should a teacher mitigate suffering at the expense of minimizing potential insights? This might be intuition as much as anything else, but I'm curious if others have thoughts about this. "

The last retreat I was on, I saw a young woman in my group who was in my opinion a dark night yogi. Through diligence and discipline, she (again, in my estimation) got up to Equanimity by the end of the retreat. The teacher's response? "Great practice!" And now the student falls back into dark night and does the whole thing over again.

She even said in group, "I have a lot of equanimity. It's not even clear what I'm supposed to do now." The teacher replies, "It's subtle." This was a highly attained teacher in the Mahasi tradition.

In my opinion, it's unethical not to warn a student about dark night, and I think it's unethical not to show the student the path out of dark night. Of course, not everyone knows about dark night, and not everyone knows stream-entry is possible. But if you do know about these things, it seems cruel not to inform the student of them, given how painful dark night can be.

"That said, I think it is great if teachers include on their websites/materials what they consider the role of teacher/student to be, the principles they uphold or aim to, etc. - along the lines of the beginnings of this thread. Then students can see if that is a match for the kind of relationship they want and lets them understand what the expectations are. "

Yes! It would be great if dharma teachers were forthcoming about this and many other things. Unfortunately, there seem to be many incentives to be coy.

@apperception, agreed. that's sad, and coyness sucks.

"She even said in group, "I have a lot of equanimity. It's not even clear what I'm supposed to do now." The teacher replies, "It's subtle." This was a highly attained teacher in the Mahasi tradition."

That is really sad. I tend to get subtly evangelical at the end of retreats and tell fellow yogis about this site, the DhO and MCTB.

The places I go on retreat don't do group interviews, so at least you get some level of personalised feedback, but then again retreats can often be a mixture of neophytes and old hands, so the instructions tend to get reduced to the lowest common denominator to avoid freaking anyone out.

"You don't really think that people who are unethical are going to see a certification group and go "oh, I'd better stop that"? do you??? People who harm others have a deep well of their own baggage and habits to unravel. I do agree with the ideal, but expecting that certification will turn everyone into kindly angels is rather naive, no?" -- giragirasol


I think certification has been done by many professions, some with more success than others, and I see it as being one way to foster change, needed change. Please note for the record that I never said it would change *all* of anything. It is, IMHO, a step in the right direction.

When I engage with a new student - just this week actually - I make damned sure to state clearly and more than once that they know what I teach. I do not teach Zen, Vajrayana, or anything but good old Theravada vipassana. I think making this kind of thing clear, as well as how we both expect the relationship to work, discussed explicitly right up front, is also a good idea.

There are reasons built into the "system" we all are familiar with that cause dharma teachers to be coy. It sucks, yes, but if someone is trying to make a reasonable living teaching the dharma it typically relegates them to a life of near poverty. Lots of folks still refuse to pay a reasonable rate for dharma teaching, thinking it's not what the Buddha meant the teaching to be, or whatever. So money becomes an issue and claiming an extra expertise here and there might become very tempting. Coyness results.

Think about it....

I'm rather disturbed that you see this as a "profession".
I hope you get rich quick, I guess that's one way to determine your success as a teacher?

B.

I know of few teachers, dharma or otherwise, who "get rich" whether quickly or slowly. Teaching is at best an average income job, at least in the UK, and, from what I've heard, in the US too. Personally, I want a dharma teacher who is "professional" - in the sense that they are committed, qualified and disciplined - and I am happy to pay for their services, so long as the teachings remain accessible to everyone and don't get dumbed down for "customer satisfaction".

"I'm rather disturbed that you see this as a "profession" I hope you get rich quick, I guess that's one way to determine your success as a teacher?" -- B.Rice

You are making unwarranted assumptions. I don't charge for teaching at all, but I know most teachers do, and in various ways. Also, if this is not a profession, what is it? A hobby? A calling? A religious duty?

Really just curious....

"
There are reasons built into the "system" we all are familiar with that cause dharma teachers to be coy. It sucks, yes, but if someone is trying to make a reasonable living teaching the dharma it typically relegates them to a life of near poverty. Lots of folks still refuse to pay a reasonable rate for dharma teaching, thinking it's not what the Buddha meant the teaching to be, or whatever. So money becomes an issue and claiming an extra expertise here and there might become very tempting. Coyness results.

Think about it....

"

I think there's also lineage issues. If a person is teaching within a specific tradition, and is an "initiated representative" (ie priest, monk, nun, etc.) then they have to present information in a way that fits with the standards of the tradition. A very common thing this results in is teachers who avoid talking about personal experience in detail, or stick to very formulaic standardized instruction. Many traditions frown on dwelling on your personal experiences in any detail or claiming any "attainment". There are, I think, some good reasons for this (because from a certain perspective all your content/experiences are just stuff, and not very important, and because from a certain perspective enlightenment isn't an attainment, and because it is intended to encourage humility), but on the other hand it can turn into a bunch of mushroom culture. They might agree with the reasons for it, or they might be thinking that violating those norms could result in reprimand, not being asked to teach, or even being rejected from the lineage.

You are comparing the certification of professions with the certification of dharma teaching, no? This creates the impression that you see dharma teaching as a profession. Professions are a means to make money, among other things. Please explain the "unwarranted assumption" which you assert I have made.
I just find the desire to create a hierarchical structure in which to place dharma teachers as very odd. The need to control seems the predominant motivation behind this idea, which isn't that surprising.
"Also, if this is not a profession, what is it? A hobby? A calling? A religious duty?"
I personally see it as an act of compassion and further practice. Perhaps a calling as well, since I don't think that all people are suited to teaching regardless of their "attainments" or "level of awakening"
I would ask you the same question, since you are a teacher and don't do it for the money. "what is it? A hobby? A calling? A religious duty?"

B.

Professions -- I see professional certifications as less about a way to make money and more about a way to certify or at least signify a certain level of expertise. This can be a positive thing in that the student can have some assurance that the teacher has at least some training in the discipline sought.

Your unwarranted assumption was in saying this -- "I hope you get rich quick, I guess that's one way to determine your success as a teacher?"

I teach because I like helping folks. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ona, yes, I agree. The great Buddhist traditions can in effect become like "certification" in that one must pass a certain point in order to obtain permission to teach. It's not perfect, but maybe it's better than nothing at all.

B.Rice, I'm a little confused by your difficulty with "dharma teacher" being a "profession". Why not?

There are plenty of fantastic compassionate teachers who absolutely teach as their profession (the namesake of this forum being only one). They survive, feed their families, afford housing and generally make a living through their teaching. Do you have a problem with someone teaching art? music? science? - and making a living doing so? Why would teaching meditation be so different? I'm absolutely in favor of great teachers earning a living through their expertise and ability to change other's lives. It would be a tragedy if someone who wanted to teach, had the heart and compassion to teach, and had deep realization could not do so because they simply could not afford it.

And if we will allow that some people can teach meditation as a "profession" (or even if they do so on a completely volunteer basis), then shouldn't we develop some ethics and standards for them? Some basic lines they should never cross?

Better than a bill of rights would be a code of conduct. I know that Ron used the term bill of rights as a provocative way to open a discussion, but this term implies that an "I" exists as an autonomous agent whose status is guaranteed solely by the fact that this "I" exists. I wouldn't go that far nor are these relationships that simple.

When it comes to training in the Buddhadharma it's a two-way and sometimes a three-way street: there's a teacher and a student and sometimes there's the sangha. Each has their entitlements, privileges and responsibilities.

A code of conduct that breaks down the teacher/student/sangha relationship into their unique rights and responsibilities maybe a better starting point than a bill of rights that sets the individual student above and apart from the rest.

"... than a bill of rights that sets the individual student above and apart from the rest."

I don't see that implied in this bill of rights.

In one sense a "sangha" is a collection of students. Ron's document outlines reasonable expectations for behavior in the teacher/student relationship. For any student paying attention, it's a reminder that they too are responsible for the quality of that relationship.

Agreed. I think it just means a reasonable level of protection for the student from creepy and otherwise dubious behavior.

"I don't see that implied in this bill of rights."

Actually it's not implied - it's explicit. I shouldn't have written that in my first post. See quotes from Ron's blog below.

But first, let me be clear, I honour what Ron is trying to accomplish. I think his intention is noble and wise. And second, no one should be exploited, humiliated or abused ever (period).

The point I'm trying to make is that a bill of rights is a legal framework that endows the individual with status independent of the group and, in this case, a status beyond another individual, namely the teacher. These rights are eminent before any other consideration. The construct of rights also presumes a relationship that is adversarial. In this context this presumption is socially problematic.

From the student's bill of rights.
"it is the teacher's duty to formally end the teacher/student relationship and support me in finding another teacher to continue practice."

"it is the responsibility of the teacher to create an atmosphere in which discussing these matters is welcomed, and fair arrangements can be made for everyone."

"I have a right to have my labor honored at a fair market value."

"it is the teacher's responsibility to refer me to another teacher at my request."

"If I ask the teacher about obtaining a second opinion, the teacher should support me in finding an appropriate source."

Alevaro is raising interesting points, so I wanted to respond. I think you are actually on to something with the code of conduct. To be frank, this is my plan. A bill of rights is the first step in delineating an ethics code for dharma teachers (particular secular teachers like myself that have no formal oversight). So when you talk about codes of conduct you really resonate with me.

However, you seem to be reasoning that because the self is ultimately empty, a bill of rights is inappropriate because it gives the individual self special status. I would disagree (no surprise). No matter what our status is in the ultimate sense of realization, we live in world of relative mundane relationships - and this includes relationships with teachers. Whether we like it or not, whether it corresponds with ultimate realization or not, we must work in a world in which teachers and students are not the same and power differences are not just real, they are sometimes extreme.

I'm a bit baffled by the feedback from a few people to focus on student ethics and behavior along with teachers. What baffles me about this is that I've never had a teacher disclose to me that they have been sexually or economically exploited by a student. No teacher has ever told me a tale of a student abusing their power - why? - because the power is with the teacher. And if we ignore that because it doesn't line up with our realization of how things are in an ultimate sense, we risk putting students in the position of having some very basic rights infringed.

And I want to emphasize that this is not at all academic. I've met a number of students who have been abused by teachers and whether their "selves" are real in an ultimate sense is actually irrelevant. They do have rights as individuals and dignity as people.

This is sort of related to the power difference... but somewhat tangential, too. Yesterday I was re-reading the "six realms" teachings, especially in Ken McLeod's "Waking Up to your Life". [Sorry, this post might not make much sense unless you are familiar with this teaching contruct.] And it made me remember an observation from my last retreat...

On a particularly clear-headed day, I was studying the teachers' personality and seeing the extent to which, moment by moment, they would seem to be acting from any one of the six realms. They had very little reactivity so this was subtle stuff. But during one set of questions and answers, I saw how the "God Realm" occured fairly often. God realm is where you don't have much suffering, things are generally blissful, and there isn't much reactivity or adversion. But the interesting thing about the God realm is that when there is suffering, it is very subtle not owned. It is gently projected outside and treated as "other" and the suffering is claimed to not be felt. Gods are above it all, this is the pride of the God's realm. They don't have to deal with the stuff of normal existance.

The reason I mention this, is in abusive situations this becomes extreme. The student is horribly deluded and suffering and the cult teacher is extremely wise and above it all. I can see how the teacher's pride could be the beginning of all of this bifurcation and I can see how denial just polarizes it further.

I'm not sure how to make this into a code of conduct, but I think in peer situations teachers need to help each other watch out for their colleges who spend too much time in the God Realm or who are becoming corrupted by Spiritual Pride.

Thanks, that's a very interesting description of the God Realm, and I think an insightful application of that model to this situation!

Thanks for your comments Alvaro. Ron summed up some of my concerns better than I could have. I would only add that in the past I have been subject to some of the difficulties the document outlines. For one thing, stories of irascible teachers might make for amusing Zen stories, but being the subject of that kind of behavior is not necessarily helpful. As Ron points out, the teacher, as an expert, really does wield greater power in the relationship '“ and in my experience this is true even if you come to them as a mature person with a functional BS meter.

A Dharma teacher bears a special and important responsibility. Students of widely varying capacities, goals, and levels of commitment come to them. Ideally the reason they are teaching is out of a sense of gratitude and compassion. If the training is effective, then the yogis under their guidance are often in a state of heightened sensitivity and vulnerability. At the very least they are coming to the teacher out of a feeling of lack, sometimes a desperate need for suffering to end. So from the view of humility and love I see nothing troubling in these requirements.