Mastering the Core Teachings of Buddha - An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book

In the West, the situation is often remarkably different from this early practice. There seem to be two basic styles of code used when advertising dharma teachers. The first is to simply use a grand title such as, “Wazoo Tulku, Supreme and Luminous Dharma King.” The

second type of code is in the style of a resume for a job, “Jane Rainbow is the author of three books. She has been teaching meditation for 17

years internationally and is a member of the Buddhist Flower Society.”

Notice that neither of these bios tells you anything about:

•

what they may actually know

•

which traditions they draw from

•

their attitude towards scholarship and the standard dogmas

•

which techniques they are masters of or teach

•

what they have attained or claim to have attained

More on the “Mushroom Factor”

•

what their personality is like

•

what their strengths and weaknesses as a teacher and person are

•

who trained them

•

the lineage or lineages by which they are claimed

•

their level of availability to their students (though “teaches internationally” is often an ominous clue)

•

why it is that they teach

•

what they expect from their students, particularly as regards money, vows and exclusive loyalty

•

how many students they already have

•

whether or not they will talk about real practice directly

•

if you run into trouble with them, is there a governing

organization that can address this

What is astounding is how few students will ever ask their teachers about any of these specific practical issues. These are the questions that should be initially considered when seeking a teacher, and yet you almost never see them addressed on a retreat center brochure. Imagine a university where none of the professors would tell you about their research, who funds their work, where they got their degree, what courses they teach, who taught them, what their specialty is, or even why they like being professors. That would be just a bit strange, wouldn’t it?

This sort of information is typically available for public consumption on the university web page.

There is something very balanced and reasonable about this. When I see a presentation at the school I currently attend, someone generally tells you exactly who the person is, what they are working on, highlights of what they have published in the past, and what positions and degrees they currently hold, and why they are qualified to speak on the topic of the day. Perhaps I am particularly naïve and idealistic, but I imagine a spiritual world where this would be standard practice as well. I dream that this would simultaneously cut down on otherworldly spiritual ideals, provide faith that it can be done, demystify the process of awakening, and bring the whole thing back down to earth. There is obviously a long way to go before such a dream is likely to be a reality, but hopefully this little book will be one small step towards that. There are cool things our 340

More on the “Mushroom Factor”

minds can do and perceive, and there are definable techniques that lead to those cool things. Why does is have to be more complex than that?

In my more cynical moments, I have sometimes thought that

Western teacher bios could just as easily read, “Jane is a Sagittarius from California. Her favorite color is turquoise and she is a mediocre chef,”

or “Wazoo is old and of substantial girth. His favorite movie is ‘Animal House.’” These would give you about as much practical information as most teacher bios do in the West.

Obviously, the assumption is that if they have been practicing for so many years, have a fancy name, or if someone let them publish a book or teach internationally, then they must be in some generic way a good teacher of something. There may also be the unspoken assumption that there is some unnamed but reliable body of evaluators of teachers somewhere that have checked the person out. Either of these may or may not be true, and some traditions do a much better job of being clear and honest about these things than others do.

Some other reasons that more people don’t talk about mastery when it actually happens or clearly advertise themselves are that they don’t want to make others jealous or intimidated. Also, talking about the stages of insight practice can sound quite outrageous and bizarre.

Further, with clarity comes mystery, and sometimes it can seem inappropriate to talk about something that can sometimes seem so slippery and sometimes even uncertain. The late, great Achaan Chah once stated that even arahats could sometimes be unsure about whether or not they are arahats. (Others, including one of my favorite teachers, have said that all arahats are always sure they are arahats. This second view is a bit extreme, and is a limited possible thought model. You know what I think of those!)

Thus, a major reason for secrecy or codes seems to be self-