Buddhists and their teachers

[AlanLa]

I am curious, do you think Buddhists relate to their teachers differently than in other religions? The answer seems an obvious yes, at least to me. So I wonder if it's because Buddhism is so much a reliance on the self that allows us to throw crap at teachers with relative no impunity. In other religions if you criticize the teacher you get called a blasphemer, but in Buddhism they say that's fine, go find another. All this is from my limited perspective and history, so enlighten me (and the rest of us) further.

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

I am curious, do you think Buddhists relate to their teachers differently than in other religions? The answer seems an obvious yes, at least to me. So I wonder if it's because Buddhism is so much a reliance on the self that allows us to throw crap at teachers with relative no impunity. In other religions if you criticize the teacher you get called a blasphemer, but in Buddhism they say that's fine, go find another. All this is from my limited perspective and history, so enlighten me (and the rest of us) further.

Actually, Al, in most of Asia and especially in Japan, the "teacher" (whether in a Buddhist group, a college or public elementary school ... also the medical doctor) is typically in an almost unchallengeable position ... one's "guru" or "master" or, at least, not someone who gets challenged with many student (or patient, for the medical doctor) questions and opinions and open criticisms. Yes, folks are sometimes free to "vote with their feet" and seek a different teacher but, in fact, in traditional Japanese and Chinese Zen, it was almost impossible for a student to change his "master" once selected ... one was bound to one's master, and almost unquestioning loyalty was expected.

In most of the Zen groups I have attended in Japan, the teacher usually is asked only a few, polite, unchallenging questions ... if any. (My Japanese dentist jokes that his American patients have two differences from his Japanese patients ... the Americans (1) moan and squirm more (2) ask a lot more questions). :shock:

Frankly, one of the tensions between Nishijima Roshi and some of his foreign students, me included, has been his 91 year old, "Old Japan" Samurai attitude with regard to variations in expression and approach on the part of some of his students (most of whom have learned not to mention differences in opinion). Younger Japanese, exposed to the west, tend to be different (my wife, Mina, is having some neck surgery this week ... and the doctor, a more "modern thinking" doctor educated in the U.S., took an hour yesterday to really talk with her about it).

Now, it is supposed to be a two-way street ... whereby the "master" has certain obligations to the "apprentice" who is bound to him. But, in reality, the apprentice usually had few options if the master was not a good one ... except to take it or try to find another teacher (not always so easy or even legally permitted).

I cannot find the original source of this quote any more, but it discusses the position of the junior researcher to his senior in a Japanese university (at least until recent years, when things have started to loosen a bit in some quarters). However, if that is a university ... well, the Zen world in Japan and Buddhism in most of Asia tends to be relatively rigid, old school, ultra-traditional, still in the middle ages, emphasizing almost unquestioning loyalty to the teacher.

In reality, there are many “Ways” to do most things in Japan, although each
group will have a tendency to claim that its pattern is “the Way.” As a
medical researcher who has participated in procedures and experiments at
many dozens of Japanese hospitals, universities and the like, I know that no
two groups ever will follow exactly the same patterns. Each, however, will
have a tendency to explain that its way is “the Way,” usually because the
most senior person in the group will have come to that conclusion after
having learned it to be the thinking of some other person ... that the senior person respects. (Also, one must be
very careful in suggesting that a competing group might have a better way
which contradicts the opinion of a senior member of group). Every group in
every culture does this, but what is unusual in Japan is the inflexible,
almost mechanical way the system operates. The emphasis on proper “Kata”
(Boye de Menthe has a wonderful, hard to find little book on this) in
Japanese society is reminiscent of any conservative, tradition based
culture, though unique in the way is has developed to permit a functioning,
industrial society.

Ah, sometimes around Treeleaf ... I wish folks were a bit more "old school" in their attitude to the teachers. :?

Gassho, Jundo

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

Stuart Lachs does a lot of writing on subjects related to this, although sometimes Stuart (who is a Zen practitioner for decades) goes overboard "baby out with the bath water" in his critique (in fact, once in a long while he can be so extreme that he throws out the whole bathroom). However, he generally says some things that need to be said ..

He hits on such important topics as how Westerners have had very idealized images of Zen Masters (especially the ones with an Asian face who look the part ... white guys like me get less respect, cause we are not "mysterious Asian old men" ... I sometimes have a joke that, if you take a waiter from a Chinese restaurant and wrap him in one of the red table clothes, some folks will assume he is a High Lama) ... and the tug or war between American independent spirit and Japanese tradition/rigidity.

The contemporary and prominent Masataka Toga-roshi has stated, "In Japanese Zen, loyalty is most important. Loyalty to one's teacher and to the tradition is more important than the Buddha and the Dharma."[20] This attitude may be well suited to Japanese culture, a culture very different from our own. However, it may be time for American practitioners to begin to explore structures of practice not modeled exclusively on the Japanese form, but on ways that are more compatible with our own culture of democratic and egalitarian ideals. They might places less emphasis on absolute loyalty to a superior or to an institution and more emphasis on equality and minimizing hierarchical structures.

In a sense, Zen has inverted its self-definition of "a separate transmission outside of words and letters." We should keep in mind that according to the Zen view truth cannot be expressed in words but rather only alluded to in spontaneous and natural activities of daily life.[21] However, Zen gives great prestige and authority to a ceremonially invested institutional role, whether Master, roshi, or Shi-fu, rather than basing authority on the actual lived, observable activity of the individual. At least in theory, this latter criterion is the only legitimate means in the East of discerning the mark of the sage. It is based on the concept of t'i-yung, usually translated as essence-function, which is prominent in all East Asian philosophical systems.[22] According to this view, it is the transformation of the personality reflected in a person's ability to act spontaneously (directly) and without hindrance in response to phenomenal situations, that marks the sage or enlightened one. The Master/roshi is said to be realized, that is to make the ideal of enlightened activity "real in his everyday experience."[23]

Zen has put the cart before the horse. Zen institutions define any teacher having the title Master or roshi as a sage or enlightened being. This imputation of character is independent of the teacher manifesting any qualities that could be seen as marks of realization or enlightenment. Regardless of whether or not the individual can manifest any evidence of such an exalted level of spiritual attainment, this status is conferred upon the teacher with the institutional title. By virtue of the investiture of an institutional position the individual automatically acquires a whole array of impressive qualities. He is extraordinary, or else utterly ordinary. He also gains the ability to act and speak from the perspective of the Absolute, to perform miracles, to always maintain a pure mind, and ultimately becomes the repository, if not the living manifestation of the perfectly realized mind of Shakyamuni Buddha. The students are not empowered to have confidence in their own abilities of empirical observation and intuition to assess the actual moment-to-moment everyday conduct of a teacher.

Though Zen institutions persist in defining themselves as a tradition, "not depending on words or letters," there is an unstated imperative to do precisely that. It is expected and repeatedly taught that the students should defer to and exalt the term "Master" or "roshi," a title and the ceremonial position it stands for, rather than relying on their own good sense and intuition in matters relating to the teacher's authority. There is a deception operating here. On the one hand Zen rhetoric tells its followers to be in the moment, to see what is in front of their eyes- "look look" Lin-chi exclaims.[24] Yet, on the other hand, Zen rhetoric implies to its followers that they are incapable of seeing what is going on in front of them, when seeing is directed towards the Master/roshi. The nature of enlightened activity must be taken by virtue of a title, on faith. What the Master does, is by definition, enlightened activity.

Clearly, this is a situation that is disempowering to Zen students who accept or internalize this construction of reality. It places the Master in a position somehow over and above the human, since all the Masters activities are enlightened, coming from the Absolute. Hence, viewing the Master is tantamount to viewing Buddhahood in the flesh. Not surprisingly, the North American Zen group mentioned earlier, being well socialized into Zen's rhetoric, expressed astonishment that a Zen Master was capable of displaying human foibles. The Master transcending being human, becomes an icon, an idealized representation of a greater truth beyond comprehension and judgment. For example, one bright undergraduate philosophy major, after some reading about Zen and upon seeing a Chinese Master walk across a room for the first time, gave expression to this icon-like view by stating, "it was intense man, it was intense."

http://www.terebess.hu/english/lachs.html#20

In fact, the problem with Western Zen students these days may be the opposite ... little patience, short term loyalty, too much arguing and "I know better" attitude, too much in their own head, throwing away too many traditions, arguing and debating everything like those talking heads on Fox News. I see that a lot! Here.

We need to find the Middle Way on these issues too.

Gassho, Jundo (and just agree with everything I say on these questions) 8)

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

... I sometimes have a joke that, if you take a waiter from a Chinese restaurant and wrap him in one of the red table clothes, some folks will assume he is a High Lama) ...

Paris Hilton actually did that a couple of years ago ... wrapped some vaguely Asian looking (but not) friend of hers in some red drapes, and folks thought he was some great Buddhist Holy Man ...



http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 11,00.html

[scott]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

Americans who take on Hindu practices seem to idolize their teachers far more than the Indians do. But Americans who take on Zen seem to do so less. Maybe the Americans who end up in Zen are the ones who aren't satisfied following a particular teacher blindly, so they pick up a practice that seems to have a lot of self-reliance?

[AlanLa]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

Hmm, interesting and complicated, huh. I was thinking that the person-to person, mind to mind transmission part made the relationship between Buddhists and their teachers different somehow, more personal. But thinking about it more and reading the above I think I have oversimplified. Besides, Buddhism has no special claim on personal relationships with its teachers, but maybe we just carry it out differently.

I saw this yesterday in Zen Master Raven by Aitken and it seemed to apply to this and other related threads:

Porcupine then asked, "Is trust in the teacher important for the practice?"
Raven said, "Indispensable."
Porcupine asked, "Can't that create problems?"
Raven said, "Interminable.

[chicanobudista]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

Ah, sometimes around Treeleaf ... I wish folks were a bit more "old school" in their attitude to the teachers. :?

Gassho, Jundo

Gorsh! This would turn into a bad Hong Kong flick.

[Trealeaf Students walking to DSI building] "You hit our teacher! Prepare to defend yourself!!! Kiaaaaaaaa!!"
:twisted:

[Seishin the Elder]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

Just from hanging around the spiritual watercooler over the years I have come to understand that the more demanding a spiritual teacher is, whether a roshi, lama, rabbi or staretz, the more eagerly and "blindly" one will follow them. When there seems to be little or no room for questioning or that quintessential Western curiosity to form, Westerners seem all the more eager to surrender themselves to guidance.

However, when the same people are given the opportunity to question, experiment and "find out on their own"; the more it is that they challenge their teacher, turn away from their guidance and hop-scotch around. It makes the observation the "kids really only want discipline" appear to be true. The freer they are made to feel, the more anarchist they become.

Don't get me wrong a little anarchy is good in the face of petrified authority, but there are some folks who seem to feel that it is their duty to challenge everything and everyone, even when those things are really working. Some Westerners, I believe, feel that unless they are tearing something down their individuality is being suppressed. This indicates to me that there is no room for "faith" in their lives, only bare raw fact, and unfortunately I have found that that does not always answer the question gnawing at one's core. Some several hundred years after the Revolutions of Reason, there are still some who wish to continue the Reign of Terror, lopping off heads left and right. Madame LaFarge...move over!

Gassho,

Kyrill/Seishin

[chicanobudista]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 11,00.html

And her guru is Raza....he is one of my pips! LOL :mrgreen:

http://www.myspace.com/maxactor5

Once I was invited to do a presentation on Buddhism. Since I am bald and vaguely Asian-looking (was confused to be "oriental" by a Chinese woman), a friend of mine suggested I should wear sandals and a saffron colored robe. He thought I would get more people to really dig my talk. I entertained the suggestion. :twisted:

[Stephanie]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

In my personal experience, wisdom and guidance offered by individuals not in a position of publicly sanctioned or approved authority has been the source of more insight, inspiration, and transformation in my life than guidance and wisdom offered by "official" Zen teachers. Perhaps it is because I learn better in relationships that are not hierarchical (it has been said that this is a more typically female approach to learning and community-building); I am not sure.

Either way, the ultimate guide has always had to be my own judgment and instinct. Which is a bit of a koan, the injunction to "trust oneself" when one knows that one's assessment of things is not innately trustworthy. What it really amounts to is learning from experience, which I don't think any of us can get around; we have to do things a certain way and see if they work or not. The one thing I have learned to trust in myself is that I can only lie to myself and follow along with something that isn't working for so long before I have to admit to myself that the emperor has no clothes.

Of course, there really is no limit to how much or how long we can lie to ourselves, but as Chet, a friend from whom I have learned so much, has said, pain is a good teacher, our most natural teacher, and falseness ultimately causes pain, however subtle. We have to listen to our own pain: am I still suffering? Do I still feel cut off from the source? Do I still feel haunted? Whatever it is that drove us to this practice in the first place.

I think that approaches in which total respect and authority are given to a teacher as a manner of custom and principle, rather than earned over time, seek to bypass the necessity of learning from pain and experience. Not to say such approaches can't work; I actually respect the Tibetan guru system, for example, though I am not formed in such a way I could ever make that path work for myself. I can appreciate, though, that such an approach works with our natural psychology, our natural thirst for authority, instead of trying to overthrow it from the start.

The relationship with the guru isn't about what is learned by taking the guru's words to heart, but the experiential learning of how we create what we perceive through projection. Ultimately, the guru we perceive is just a projection of our own "inner guru," etc. Faith initially placed in another brings us back to ourselves. Again, I can respect and appreciate the virtue of this approach, I'm just too lacking in trust and too quickly perceive others' neuroses to be able to uphold anyone else in a "guru" position for any sustained period of time.

And the danger, of course, is that early on, students don't know that their "perfect teacher" is just their own projection. And so, the flawed people who become spiritual teachers (which is all people who become spiritual teachers, in case my meaning isn't clear) can have those flaws excused, justified, or upheld as holy truth by "green" students who have faith without wisdom. Which creates dangerous power imbalances that typically lead to dysfunctional communities and interpersonal harm.

Ultimately, we can only learn through our own experience. Whether we take the path of total faith or of total skepticism, we can only truly learn from the pain and unsuccessful outcomes caused by that which we do that is not based in truth. The only faith that I have found indispensable on this path is that it is possible to wake up, that there is some part of us that can recognize truth, that its voice will rise above the clamor of foolish thoughts from time to time. Otherwise, we would have no hope of being anything other than self-deluded... a fear that arises for me, still, from time to time, and is only overcome through encounters with those who have earned my trust and respect by living with honesty, bravery, and humility, and who demonstrate, through the way they live, the accessibility and immanence of truth.

[Govert]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

In my personal experience, I have hardly any comparison with teachers in other religions, but the ones in my "Catholic" period where priests that were so far from what they preached, it seemed the only way was to follow them due to their status. A few people that earned their trust did embody what they believe in and they stepped down from their podium. The reason why I came to buddhism is that ( in different traditions in the west), the "leading" people are easy to connect, human and one of the experiences I had in zen is koan study which is shaking you about, so it is part of the practice to challenge what the teacher is teaching you, in the sense you don't have to follow, you have to experience it yourself. If you see a buddha, kill him.

Gassho

Ensho Joris

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

I saw this yesterday in Zen Master Raven by Aitken and it seemed to apply to this and other related threads:

Porcupine then asked, "Is trust in the teacher important for the practice?"
Raven said, "Indispensable."
Porcupine asked, "Can't that create problems?"
Raven said, "Interminable.

Well, that very same Aitken Roshi recently released his files of letters on an unusual and terrible situation with his Teachers and other priests in his Lineage, a true lesson on cultural differences East and West and how some scandals can get swept under the rug (that is not just the Catholic Church by any means) ...

We should talk about these things in the open, not sweep them under the rug (the group or church that tries to hide these things is the one to run away from ... the group that tries to deal with them honestly, recognizing that there are always some "bad apples" is the "healthy orchard" in my opinion). A few bad apples do not spoil the whole bunch!! You know, Zen teaches us that there is no "you" to bump into all the other "not you" in the world ... Enlightenment! But, there sure is a "you" too ... and that you will sometimes bump into "not you's" a lot (and realizing that fact, to the marrow, is Enlightenment too! In fact, one has to realize that both perspectives are true at once! That's REALLY Enlightenment!!Moving back and forth and inside all of that ... Enlightenment!)

And some of those "you" and "not you" happen to be Buddhist priests, and sometimes some can do very bad things!! :shock:

In May of this year, we received a CD collection of letters held at the University of Hawai’i at M?noa Library Archives. Robert Aitken R?shi, the founder of the Diamond Sangha, an international Zen sangha, has donated his extensive files to the university library. The letters were, until recently, part of the sealed section of Aitken’s voluminous papers. The collection is accompanied by a signed letter dated August 14, 2008, from Lynn Ann Davis, Head of the Preservation Department of the library attesting to their authenticity, and every page of each letter is stamped with the library’s stamp. The letters cover the period of 1964 through to 1984 and are devoted to the interactions, directly and indirectly, between Aitken R?shi and Eido Shimano R?shi of the New York-based Zen Studies Society. Although there are some letters between Shimano and Aitken, and between Aitken and his Japanese teachers S?en R?shi, Yasutani R?shi, and Yamada R?shi, many are to others in the wider American Zen movement. The letters are concerned primarily with the “Shimano problem”, a problem about the alleged sexual misbehaviour of Eido Shimano R?shi that first arose in 1964 in Hawai’i, where Aitken R?shi is based.

Following is a summation of the extraordinary story, as explicated in the Aitken letters, of a Zen master teaching in America for some 35 years, who has been accused of sexual misconduct numerous times and yet was never called to task nor properly investigated. A thorough, open and public inquiry into these accusations is long overdue. It is inappropriate that in today’s climate, when many religious figures have been accused and found guilty of inappropriate sexual activities, that Zen Buddhist teachers should be exempt from similar inquiries and not be held to the highest standards of propriety.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Cri ... tters.html

[Shujin]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

This wound up being an informative thread for me. On a tangent, some of the attitudes discussed remind me of myself during my university days. I had just started listening to jazz, and felt that only black folks could make 'real' jazz music. This was derived from a misguided sense that there was some kind of particular soul they possessed that white people didn't. Some time later, after I became more comfortable in my own skin, I realized that I was missing out on great jazz music from people of all races.

Still on the jazz note, the discussion of teachers was illuminating. I remember idolizing Miles Davis, only to find one day that there were sweeping aspects of his life that left something to be desired. I felt confused that someone who could create great music could be doing things that were just plain wrong (ie beating women). I have to admit that I still don't understand, but it was a lesson in the pitfalls of hero worship.

gassho,
Chris

[AlanLa]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

The nature of their position makes teachers role models, and yet the role of a teacher is to help the student find him/herself. I can't BE like Jundo because I have to BE Alan. To try and BE like Jundo is like putting another head on top of my own. Instead, I can DO like Jundo, but only up to the point it makes sense for Alan. Ultimately, I think we learn FROM teachers about how to BE ourselves, how to find our own true nature. Just because a teacher makes mistakes does not make him/her/it a bad teacher, although it may make him/her/it a bad role model. And I think this is an important distinction. If (or when) our teachers make mistakes (because they are human), then it is up to us to learn from those mistakes. And mistakes are a very effective learning tool, so it's good to air out those mistakes, but at the same time not all the dirty laundry needs to be out in the open because then it just smells real bad. The whole thing is very complicated.

[AlanLa]

Re: Buddhists and their teachers

As a teacher, let me add to Chugai's comment. I tell my students all the time that I can give them knowledge, but it is up to them to make it their own, to make use of it. This does NOT include arguing with me about knowledge, but sometimes a challenge can be mistaken for arguing. We gotta work through both the challenges and the arguments, both teachers and students. Again, it gets complicated, and that's why it's called practice.