David, I thoroughly enjoyed this essay and feel it contains much wise advise for the Lama-Student relationship. But oddly enough it is one of your opening sentences with which I have disagreement. You said,
"The point is that, if what a teacher says is accurate, it does not matter if he or she is an unpleasant or even unethical person. "
I think we should avoid unethical teachers like the plague, no mater how accurately they speak. Following unethical, immoral, unkind teachers is a recipe for disaster. And you can imagine your quote is exactly what an unethical teacher would want you to believe. Is see your quote as very unwise advise. I think Christian scriptures are right when they say, "Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."(Matt. 7:20) [and I am not Christian]
Hmm... this is a point I made in passing.... but it traditional advice within Tibetan Buddhism.
If you follow the "Four Reliances" link in the article, Mipham Rinpoche (one of the great Nyingma intellectuals) gives the example of a butcher. For traditional Buddhists, a butcher is probably the most unethical thing you can be (because they kill more sentient beings even than serial murderers or most warlords).
This idea, that unethical people can be effective teachers, is one that has caused a lot of upset in the transition of Tibetan Buddhism into the West. "Crazy wisdom" is one of the related buzzwords.
I have a draft page written about this for this site. I think I probably won't finish and post it, because the controversy (which ran hot a decade ago) has mostly died down, and because I'm not sure I have anything new to say about it.
The summary of what I have to say is:
The debate tends to force people into unrealistically extreme, polarized positions, and therefore is mostly unhelpful.
I think it is true that unethical people can be effective teachers. I have some experience with this (in contexts other than Aro).
I personally would much rather have a teacher I consider ethically trustworthy. The alternative requires a lot of extra effort that I don't want to bother with.
I am planning to write a series of pages about how to choose a teacher. I suppose I'll have to say something about this there.
if what a teacher says is accurate, it does not matter if he or she is an unpleasant or even unethical person.
Aphorisms and terse statements are ripe for controversy because of the various readings they invite. Likewise, "ethical" is full of contrary nuances. In light of that, I have though of 4 simple themes which may help unpack a bit of the unnecessary controversy in this declaration. For if nuances are separated, perhaps we can separate the wheat from the chaff (sorry, another Biblical allusion) and refine the conversation:
1. Conventional vs Universal Ethics
Sure, if the teachers unethical acts are judged meanly by silly (if not perverse) local convention like untouchablilty in a Caste-Pollution culture, or a wine drinking in a dry Pentecostal town, then "unethical" can be an inaccurate signal and the declaration can guide people to see beyond false ethics. But if the person is a life guide but they are a serial killer, a rapist, a wife-beater, a child molester or such, then following them would be pure foolishness.
2. Crazy Wisdom & Personality Displays
As you wrote, if it is pointing to the sanctified personalities of supposed "holy men" as being gentle, soft spoken, patient and such, perhaps, these also are a false notion of "ethical" that the declaration points away from. Indeed, like you, David, I have had several wild teachers in my day which I still look back at with thankfulness. Likewise, with many close friends (several started out as students), I have been considered the same: willing to sacrifice conventional niceties to accomplishing a deeper more meaningful relationship. But if the teacher uses this aphorism as an excuse for neurotic displays and abuse, it is wise to stay away.
3. Not Judging the Whole Person
People make mistakes. You can have a mentor is surgery who is excellent and in one or two cases they mess up. Your pilot instructor may crash a plan, but that does not make all his lessons useless. I have also had teachers that have done wrong things in their lives -- adultery, lying and a few others. Not in relationship to me but to others. But of course, these were not "ethical" teachers to me. I could learn from them in spite of their foibles. One ethical mistake (or two or three) does not a worthless person/teacher make. But a person who continually messes us in the field you seek instruction, it is best to stay away. But a person who continually messes us in the field you seek instruction, it is best to stay away.
4. Unrelated Fields of Instruction
People can have very compartmentalized skill sets. If a guitar teacher is a drunk and wife-beater, he can still be a superb guitar teacher. If your philosophy teacher is brilliant in laying out the playing ground of intellectual debates, it does not necessarily make his teachings useless if he was a murdering mercenary in his youth or deserted his children to poverty and disease or stolen from several banks. Sure, all those acts are rightfully reprehensible, but the teachings are unrelated and may still be useful. I am not sure that association with such an individual over the long-haul is a good thing since much of human learning happens by mimicking. But with intelligent discernment and effort of will, the teaching could certainly be separated out and non-harmful, perhaps. This too I have done and I hope others have done with me.
Ah yes, one obvious temptation to stay away from is the reflex to justify what we are invested in -- a relationship, a country, a religion, a sect, a word, a teacher. This is one of the common means by which we fool ourselves. In the above themes for exploring these declaration, I am assuming we all understand the danger of this reflex.
By email subscription
By RSS feed
Follow me on Twitter
Comments
David, I thoroughly enjoyed
8 Jan 2011
David, I thoroughly enjoyed this essay and feel it contains much wise advise for the Lama-Student relationship. But oddly enough it is one of your opening sentences with which I have disagreement. You said,
I think we should avoid unethical teachers like the plague, no mater how accurately they speak. Following unethical, immoral, unkind teachers is a recipe for disaster. And you can imagine your quote is exactly what an unethical teacher would want you to believe. Is see your quote as very unwise advise. I think Christian scriptures are right when they say, "Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."(Matt. 7:20) [and I am not Christian]
Unethical teachers
9 Jan 2011
Hmm... this is a point I made in passing.... but it traditional advice within Tibetan Buddhism.
If you follow the "Four Reliances" link in the article, Mipham Rinpoche (one of the great Nyingma intellectuals) gives the example of a butcher. For traditional Buddhists, a butcher is probably the most unethical thing you can be (because they kill more sentient beings even than serial murderers or most warlords).
This idea, that unethical people can be effective teachers, is one that has caused a lot of upset in the transition of Tibetan Buddhism into the West. "Crazy wisdom" is one of the related buzzwords.
I have a draft page written about this for this site. I think I probably won't finish and post it, because the controversy (which ran hot a decade ago) has mostly died down, and because I'm not sure I have anything new to say about it.
The summary of what I have to say is:
I am planning to write a series of pages about how to choose a teacher. I suppose I'll have to say something about this there.
Unpacking Nuances
9 Jan 2011
The Declaration:
Aphorisms and terse statements are ripe for controversy because of the various readings they invite. Likewise, "ethical" is full of contrary nuances. In light of that, I have though of 4 simple themes which may help unpack a bit of the unnecessary controversy in this declaration. For if nuances are separated, perhaps we can separate the wheat from the chaff (sorry, another Biblical allusion) and refine the conversation:
1. Conventional vs Universal Ethics
Sure, if the teachers unethical acts are judged meanly by silly (if not perverse) local convention like untouchablilty in a Caste-Pollution culture, or a wine drinking in a dry Pentecostal town, then "unethical" can be an inaccurate signal and the declaration can guide people to see beyond false ethics. But if the person is a life guide but they are a serial killer, a rapist, a wife-beater, a child molester or such, then following them would be pure foolishness.
2. Crazy Wisdom & Personality Displays
As you wrote, if it is pointing to the sanctified personalities of supposed "holy men" as being gentle, soft spoken, patient and such, perhaps, these also are a false notion of "ethical" that the declaration points away from. Indeed, like you, David, I have had several wild teachers in my day which I still look back at with thankfulness. Likewise, with many close friends (several started out as students), I have been considered the same: willing to sacrifice conventional niceties to accomplishing a deeper more meaningful relationship. But if the teacher uses this aphorism as an excuse for neurotic displays and abuse, it is wise to stay away.
3. Not Judging the Whole Person
People make mistakes. You can have a mentor is surgery who is excellent and in one or two cases they mess up. Your pilot instructor may crash a plan, but that does not make all his lessons useless. I have also had teachers that have done wrong things in their lives -- adultery, lying and a few others. Not in relationship to me but to others. But of course, these were not "ethical" teachers to me. I could learn from them in spite of their foibles. One ethical mistake (or two or three) does not a worthless person/teacher make. But a person who continually messes us in the field you seek instruction, it is best to stay away. But a person who continually messes us in the field you seek instruction, it is best to stay away.
4. Unrelated Fields of Instruction
People can have very compartmentalized skill sets. If a guitar teacher is a drunk and wife-beater, he can still be a superb guitar teacher. If your philosophy teacher is brilliant in laying out the playing ground of intellectual debates, it does not necessarily make his teachings useless if he was a murdering mercenary in his youth or deserted his children to poverty and disease or stolen from several banks. Sure, all those acts are rightfully reprehensible, but the teachings are unrelated and may still be useful. I am not sure that association with such an individual over the long-haul is a good thing since much of human learning happens by mimicking. But with intelligent discernment and effort of will, the teaching could certainly be separated out and non-harmful, perhaps. This too I have done and I hope others have done with me.
The Justification Temptation
9 Jan 2011
Ah yes, one obvious temptation to stay away from is the reflex to justify what we are invested in -- a relationship, a country, a religion, a sect, a word, a teacher. This is one of the common means by which we fool ourselves. In the above themes for exploring these declaration, I am assuming we all understand the danger of this reflex.
Post new comment