Page 3 of 3

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:47 pm
by Malcolm
Sönam wrote:
Namdrol wrote: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

Khyentse Rinpoche is not my teacher, and I don't know him as a teacher, though I have met him.

I am sure he is qualified to teach because his father, my teacher, said so.

But I am talking in general, not each specific teacher. There are always exceptions to every rule.

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:11 pm
by treehuggingoctopus
Sönam wrote:I do not think he has a 15 years cursus with all what Namdrol includes in it!

Sönam
I don't think Namdrol suggested that the knowledge indispensable for becoming a qualified teacher must in all cases be acquired in one particular way. Personally, not only am I convinced Yeshi is indeed 100% qualified to teach - for the reasons given by Namdrol above - but what little 'personal' experience of Yeshi's teaching I've had also confirms my conviction.

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:12 pm
by Sönam
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Sönam wrote:I do not think he has a 15 years cursus with all what Namdrol includes in it!

Sönam
I don't think Namdrol suggested that the knowledge indispensable for becoming a qualified teacher must in all cases be acquired in one particular way. Personally, not only am I convinced Yeshi is indeed 100% qualified to teach - for the reasons given by Namdrol above - but what little 'personal' experience of Yeshi's teaching I've had also confirms my conviction.
I did'nt say Yeshé was not a good teacher, I've no opinion yet ... I just answered to the 15 years cursus of Namdrol (but then he did answer)

Sönam

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:53 pm
by Dharmaswede
What is the definition of "teaching" here?

Best Regards,

Jens

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:20 am
by Dechen Norbu
I mean mostly formally teaching Dharma. Presenting oneself as a Dharma teacher and all that jazz.
Nevertheless, even if "informally teaching", if there's such thing, one has to be as cautious. But others will not deposit the same amount of trust in us and will be less prone to have faith in what we say if we are not full fledged teachers, presented that way. So its safer for those listening. Mostly we are the ones in danger.

I guess in the end it boils down to knowing if we can really help others. Having a chat about Dharma if one knows the basics well enough, has a good grasp of theory and some well established practice seems fine. We need to be careful about our motivation and see how we react when people flatter us, criticize what we say and think or even speak badly of who we are. This goes for something as simple as chatting about Dharma (on and offline). I've seen people being really bad influences in informal banter about the teachings. This is pretty negative, IMO.

Having a conversation or helping a friend clarifying some doubts is not the same as being a a teacher. For instance, Namdrol doesn't present himself as a teacher (even though he has the qualifications to be one, IMO), but I've learned tons of stuff from his posts, sites and so on. I consider him a trustworthy source. Only if he says something that seems opposite to what I was taught I bother to check it. Otherwise I don't. The problem is that there are teachers with much, much less preparation than Namdrol that present themselves as such. This is a problem and their students will pay dearly most of the times...
I've seen one or two lamas losing their feet in matters that Namdrol dominates completely. We all have heard about scandals, sometimes related to people with tremendous amount of training. If these people can go wrong, imagine people with little training...

Do we know enough to clarify a doubt? Are our intentions wholesome? Can we deal with what happens during and after talking about Dharma with a group of friends or strangers? We need to have all this things sorted out before chatting about it if we want to play on the safe side.
So it's much safer to be a student until one is in fact ready to be a teacher. Students can help each other too, under the guidance of a good teacher.

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:36 am
by Heruka
be open and honest with yourself, no deception.

if then you can help....help, if not, then try to do no harm.

dzogchen monk...why not?

dzogchen mechanic...why not?

dzogchen farmer.....why not?

where is the limitations?

:shrug:

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:38 am
by Heruka
even if one is (formal)? teacher,
you have to let students come and go as they see fit.

no problems, even encourage them to seek other teachers.

remember the teaching is the thing, not your ego.

:namaste:

good luck.

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:15 am
by Dharmaswede
Decehen Norbu,

Thank you for your reply to my question about teaching. It gives a very helpful overview over the different aspects of the issue to keep in mind, and I have read it several times over the past few days. It is appreciated.

Best Regards,

Jens

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:40 pm
by Dechen Norbu
You're welcome. :smile:

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:04 pm
by AdmiralJim
What i don't understand is if we put teaching on such a high pedestal then what is the purpose of this internet forum? surely there could be things which could be misconstrued as harmful? :shrug: I am also sure that I heard that one shouldnt be mean in giving dharma? Surely the barometer of whether something is worth listening to is that we find it useful as a tool for handling our stress and suffering. If that can be found to be the case then I don't see what the problem is!
And what exactly are the five major sciences that namdrol talks about? I think one of them is medicine is it not? well not everyone has the capacity and also sciences from a western perspective? I am not so sure about namdrols answer, I hope he explains it in more detail :twothumbsup:

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:34 pm
by Josef
AdmiralJim wrote:What i don't understand is if we put teaching on such a high pedestal then what is the purpose of this internet forum? surely there could be things which could be misconstrued as harmful? :shrug: I am also sure that I heard that one shouldnt be mean in giving dharma? Surely the barometer of whether something is worth listening to is that we find it useful as a tool for handling our stress and suffering. If that can be found to be the case then I don't see what the problem is!
And what exactly are the five major sciences that namdrol talks about? I think one of them is medicine is it not? well not everyone has the capacity and also sciences from a western perspective? I am not so sure about namdrols answer, I hope he explains it in more detail :twothumbsup:
The five sciences are:
Medicine
Logic
Art and craftsmanship
Language
Philosophy

Re: Dzogchen Monk?

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:19 pm
by Dechen Norbu
AdmiralJim wrote:What i don't understand is if we put teaching on such a high pedestal then what is the purpose of this internet forum? surely there could be things which could be misconstrued as harmful? :shrug: I am also sure that I heard that one shouldnt be mean in giving dharma? Surely the barometer of whether something is worth listening to is that we find it useful as a tool for handling our stress and suffering. If that can be found to be the case then I don't see what the problem is!
And what exactly are the five major sciences that namdrol talks about? I think one of them is medicine is it not? well not everyone has the capacity and also sciences from a western perspective? I am not so sure about namdrols answer, I hope he explains it in more detail :twothumbsup:
We are students/ practitioners who benefit from sharing experiences and knowledge. This forum is not a substitute for a real teacher by any means. It has value, but also severe limitations.