Karma Dorje wrote:I am not rationalizing their behaviour. I am saying that when the examples you cite are on the level of HHDL or Tsongkhapa, the burden is on you to show that this applies to the average practitioner.
It applies to anyone who is literate and still has a pulse.
Malcolm wrote:At least they are acquiring teachings, as opposed to building collections of stamps and so on. There is no downside.
Receiving teachings you are not able to practice out of acquisitiveness merely leaves an imprint of acquisitiveness and craving associated with Dharma teachings.
Better to have a craving for Dharma teachings than crack or tobacco.
Receiving teachings you are not ready for, can lead one to develop all sorts of wrong conceptuality about the teachings that could be avoided by relying on the care of a realized master and following his or her prescription.
Average practitioners cannot tell if their teachers are realized. The average teacher generally is only interested in promoting their own teaching lineage.
And what kinds of wrong conceptuality are we worried about here? Why the conservatism? Especially coming from someone who hardly fits a conventional definition of a Tibetan Buddhist since by your own admission you continue to practice Hinduism?
In any event, I think it is important for people to study and receive a lot of things, rather than get stuck in these Tibetan lineage politics. Even if they spend some time in a state of confusion, life is short, teachings are rare, and deciding not to go to a teaching because "it might be bad for me" is really false thinking. If you are interested in tummo, go find a tummo teacher. If you are interested in Dzogchen, go find a Dzogchen teacher.
Teachers really cannot discern your capacity unless they have known you for years.
Of course, once you have perceived the essence of all teachings, then going to teachers is a waste of time unless you have a very specific reason for wanting this or that teaching.