Dzogchen Monk?

[Clarence]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

Well, why don't you teach more then? You are qualified according to your own qualifications. BTW, I think you are qualified as well. Just something I have been think about lately.

Thanks, C

[Malcolm]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

Well, why don't you teach more then? You are qualified according to your own qualifications. BTW, I think you are qualified as well. Just something I have been think about lately.

Thanks, C

Maybe I am not so qualified, sometimes I still get mad in political discussions.

N

[Fa Dao]

Politics are a good reason to take up Sutra style renunciation

[kirtu]

The first principle is: anyone who thinks of being a teacher, must first understand there are many teachers superior to him or herself. So in this case, better to send prospective students to one's own or another teacher.

If in the end it turns out that someone really cannot enter the dharma without your help, then and only then is it really necessary for you to act as a teacher. Then it does not become an ego trip.

But even in this case, if you do not have sufficient knowledge, understanding and pratical experience, you really cannot help others, you will only harm them.

In this case, it is better not to teach, even if there are no other teachers available.

Every Buddhist should be able to at least explain lovingkindness and compassion and be able to state that it is better than anger, hatred and self-centerdness and my-tribe-is-inherently-better-than-yours-ness.

Ideally everyone should be able to explain about refuge if the need should arise.

Every tantrika should be able to go well beyond that and at least explain the generalities of the Sravaka school view(s) and the basics of Cittamatra and Mahdyamika and about the basics of mantra and deity yoga as a method (so creation) and have an understanding of why it is a superior method of liberation. All of this should be from one's own experience.

So every Buddhist should be able to explain what to reject and what to accept (morality and the basics of the Vow of Personal Liberation), then the very basics from the Dharmapada and/or Shantideva depending on their school (so Chinese Buddhists, Zen Buddhists, Pure Land Buddhists would modify this a bit) and every tantrika should be able to communicate the basics beyond that.

Who knows when we might have to function as a teacher at some level to a being? Didn't Patrul Rinpoche walk around and preach to little animals? Crowds began following Shabkar all around. Eka Kawaguchi ran into a tulku and his wife who spent their days barking at each other - amazingly Kawaguchi also met the tulku's lama and he asked Kawaguchi to go help the tulku fix his behaviour. In a taisho Daido Roshi said that at the death of his mother he felt powerless to go anything because his mother had no connection to the Buddhist teachings. So he began reciting the Lord's Prayer with her and she died in samadhi focused on Jesus. Different people have different perceptions and we always actually minister to people in some fashion whether we are aware of that of not (so this last statement from a Christian teaching of long ago - we always project our life to others in some way).

Kirt

[kirtu]

An unqualified physican is the enemy of his patients, doing more harm than good.

Likewise, an unqualified dharma teacher is a mara for his students, sending both himself and his students to hell.

N

Namdrol,

When do you consider someone qualified? Of course it depends on what they are teachings but I am sure some generalizations can be made.

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

This is ideally. As Jamgon Kongtrul notes in "Ethics" we have to take what we can get. "In these degenerate times a teacher might not have all the qualifications ...." or words to take effect.

Kirt

[kirtu]

I disagree with this. It's important for living beings to receive the Dharma and the more Teachers there are, the better. It seems to me that the OPs motivation is a good one and even though he says his bodhichitta is not pure, someone with compassion and a good understanding of the Dharma can help others, even if they only read from Dharma books by well established authors. You don't have to be a Buddha to be a Teacher.

Even animals can benefit from hearing the sounds of holy Dharma, so it's not wrong to teach if your motivation is good.

But people have to know their limits and they must have proper Bodhicitta.

Kirt

[AdmiralJim]

Maybe I am not so qualified, sometimes I still get mad in political discussions

Is that all? LOL

[Dechen Norbu]

I disagree with this. It's important for living beings to receive the Dharma and the more Teachers there are, the better. It seems to me that the OPs motivation is a good one and even though he says his bodhichitta is not pure, someone with compassion and a good understanding of the Dharma can help others, even if they only read from Dharma books by well established authors. You don't have to be a Buddha to be a Teacher.

Even animals can benefit from hearing the sounds of holy Dharma, so it's not wrong to teach if your motivation is good.

But people have to know their limits and they must have proper Bodhicitta.

Kirt

And skillful means. Imagine a wannabe teacher creating aversion to Dharma in someone just because he didn't know how to present it properly. That person could have met the Dharma and succeeded if he had a good teacher, but because of a bad teacher this person created aversion to it. The karmic outcome can't be good.

I think one has to focus on being a good practitioner. A good practitioner will one day become a good teacher if the circumstances allow such scenario. The motivation of wanting to help others offering them the greatest gift is very wholesome. To get to the point of really being able to do it, one must focus in becoming a good practitioner and the rest will happen naturally. A good practitioner is always a good teacher by his own example if not by anything else.
Wisdom, you motivation is great, but be very careful so that you don't let your ego sink its claws deep in the best thing you have going on.

Let me just share with you a bit of my experience. There was a time when I envisioned to become a Dharma teacher in the future. The more I practiced, the more I understood that I was doing things upside down. Being a joke as a practitioner and thinking about teaching... what a laugh! It hit me one day, and it hit me hard. I've dropped all those ideas about teaching, opening a Dharma center and all that stuff. I was being a fool and risking ruining my practice. How could I even think about such thing when I definitively needed to become a decent student/practitioner? I was being worse than the character of the "Famous Moon" tale. Those projects were all based on assumptions, one of them being that I would become a good practitioner... however I had no idea about what a good practitioner was supposed to be, as I was finding out through... practice! So one day it went all though the window. All those fantasies and projects that were lead by my new ego driven Buddhist layer. What a relief! As I liked Dharma and thought it would be valuable to others, my motivation was sharing this, so I studied and tried to progress fast. I came to realize that we have very subtle hindrances nested in ourselves. I can't share what I don't have. So, to the cushion and to the books just for the sake of learning and practicing, without future expectations, projects, fantasies. Focusing in each day. Otherwise it is like being in the kindergarten and thinking about becoming the President of the USA. It's funny if we're kids. Not that funny if we're adults. So each day to its own, I thought. It has been like this till now and to this day I think that was one of the best decisions I ever made concerning my practice. More than 10 years have passed and I'm still not even close of being considered able to teach Dharma. I'm not even sure if I'm already more than a half decent practitioner, but I suspect I'm not. So much for those teaching fantasies that were nothing more than a waste of valuable time!

[mint]

And skillful means. Imagine a wannabe teacher creating aversion to Dharma in someone just because he didn't know how to present it properly. That person could have met the Dharma and succeeded if he had a good teacher, but because of a bad teacher this person created aversion to it. The karmic outcome can't be good.

I've don't even try to explain Dharma to my girlfriend for this very reason. I also try not to be too vocal about being Buddhist or following Dharma or anything so that if someone catches me stealing or other unvirtuous acts then, though I may go to hell, they won't be scandalized and may have an opportunity to learn Dharma purely.

[Dechen Norbu]

I've only gave books about Dharma to my wife after being with her for more than two years when she said she wanted to learn. I noticed she was curious from the start, but said to her that it was up to her becoming a Buddhist or not. During those two years we've talked about Dharma half a dozen times, always because she asked something. Then she insisted that I taught her, which I refused explaining why. Instead, I gave her good introductory books. Then answered questions about them. When she became really interested, I presented the DC to her and she then decided to become ChNN's student. Now she is really interested, follows webcasts (even when I can't), studies and does her practice. Dharma is now the major issue in her life, while she keeps her professional life intact (she's a teacher).
Pretty much the same happened with my former girlfriend. When I met her she thought Buddhism was something for eastern people that had nothing to do with her! She too has become a devoted practitioner, went to Tibet more than once, follows a teacher and engaged in a shedra, which she is still completing. I never took the initiative to teach her anything. Both are now firmly established practitioners. I was just a facilitator when their interest manifested. If such happens with your girlfriend, and I aspire it be so, then you can lend her a hand.

[Paul]

So "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" works with Dharma?

[Sönam]

Also I understand what you mean Dechen, but we also have to considere the spontaneity of a one to one discussion. It's not really a teaching but at least can be the spontaneity of being present ... and it's usefull.

Sönam

[Tilopa]

Even if we are not a Geshe or fully trained Lama if we have studied and practiced for some time and have some knowledge and understanding then humbly sharing what we know with others could be very helpful. I think it depends on motivation. Some people teach Dharma because they sincerely want to help others but some teach because they want fame and adulation. So it could be a good or bad thing depending on circumstances.

[Acchantika]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

How would this be judged in the case of a Westerner today?

My understanding is that traditionally, (native Tibetan) monks spend 9 years at a monastery college studying, then 3 years doing PhD-equivalent studies, then a further 3 years in retreat in the case of Nyingma Dzogchen. At this point they receive certification etc. So 15 years of hardcore study and retreat to become eligible to actually teach, at least.

As Dzogchen moves away from Tibet and India in an apparently degenerate age, Western teachers will inevitably arise more and more. As far as I know, no Westerner can be expected to receive this kind of equivalent training, unless individually tutored perhaps. So, we won't be able to just say, "He/She is a Geshe from organisation x" or whatever. I don't know by what ruler their progress and knowledge is supposed be measured by a community or prospective student, who cannot verify it by themselves.

[Malcolm]

My understanding is that traditionally, (native Tibetan) monks spend 9 years at a monastery college studying, then 3 years doing PhD-equivalent studies, then a further 3 years in retreat in the case of Nyingma Dzogchen. At this point they receive certification etc. So 15 years of hardcore study and retreat to become eligible to actually teach, at least.

Yes, this is good. Less is insufficient.

[Dechen Norbu]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

How would this be judged in the case of a Westerner today?

My understanding is that traditionally, (native Tibetan) monks spend 9 years at a monastery college studying, then 3 years doing PhD-equivalent studies, then a further 3 years in retreat in the case of Nyingma Dzogchen. At this point they receive certification etc. So 15 years of hardcore study and retreat to become eligible to actually teach, at least.

As Dzogchen moves away from Tibet and India in an apparently degenerate age, Western teachers will inevitably arise more and more. As far as I know, no Westerner can be expected to receive this kind of equivalent training, unless individually tutored perhaps. So, we won't be able to just say, "He/She is a Geshe from organisation x" or whatever. I don't know by what ruler their progress and knowledge is supposed be measured by a community or prospective student, who cannot verify it by themselves.

It's a good question. We will have to wait and see. For now we still have teachers from older generations with proper training, so we are still in the clear. This is a transitional period and we have to wait and see how things go. There are still people receiving proper training in the East. I hope in the West, sooner or later, the conditions for the development of great teachers manifest. We will have to go as we go now: lineage. If someone, western or otherwise, has the trust of a good lama to teach, then it's likely that such person is able to do it properly. The study and the retreats will be there too. They must. Probably the format will change, but the training needs to be there. Otherwise we will end up with blind leading the blind...

[Sönam]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

And what's about Khyentse Yeshi and few others of the kind ?

Sönam

[Stewart]

From an earlier thread

gregkavarnos wrote:

...My lama, for example, told me to wear a zen and lay teachers robe every time I teach, I find that this plays nasty games with my ego (and with the students view of me) so I avoid wearing them....

What exactly do you teach greg?

[treehuggingoctopus]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

And what's about Khyentse Yeshi and few others of the kind ?

Well, is Yeshi lacking in any of these?

[Sönam]

They should be educated in the five major sciences, sutra, tantra, have done retreats, have gained some measure of signs of experience, skilled in giving explanations, in addition to having bodhicitta, and so on.

N

And what's about Khyentse Yeshi and few others of the kind ?

Well, is Yeshi lacking in any of these?

I do not think he has a 15 years cursus with all what Namdrol includes in it!

Sönam