Finding and leaving the teacher ...

[ground]

In order to receive benefit, one has to find its source. Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left.

As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him.

Never settle down.


Thoughts?


Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

In order to receive benefit, one has to find its source. Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left.

As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him.

Never settle down.


Thoughts?




Kind regards

You've already posted this. It's illogical as it assumes the teacher has no more to give and/or the student will need no more help.

Another anti-Vajrayana punt, and a weak effort at that - using the same title as the thread where you posted this before.

[ground]

Another anti-Vajrayana punt, and a weak effort at that - using the same title as the thread where you posted this before.

I left the vajrayana forum and started this in the general mahayana forum because it may be worthwhile to discuss.

I modified the title. It is actually another thread.

Actually I am again disppointed about vajrayanists. I take this to be a sign. I am not "anti-vajrayana".

It's illogical as it assumes the teacher has no more to give and/or the student will need no more help.

Not necessarily illogical since once one received benefit one may get attached to the teacher as person and progress can be blocked through that.


Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

What makes you think that this assertion is more valid within the Mahayana?

I see no difference.

Irrespective of the mind of the disciple. you cannot know the mind of the guru so cannot assume they have no more to offer.

That's why it is illogical. The premise is wrong.

[ground]

What makes you think that this assertion is more valid within the Mahayana?

The vajrayana tenets belong to the vajrayana.

I see no difference.

Of course.

Irrespective of the mind of the disciple. you cannot know the mind of the guru so cannot assume they have no more to offer.

What is "more"? There always may be expected "more", something "better", something "higher" ... always ... but what if not ... and does it matter after all?

That's why it is illogical. The premise is wrong.

You are entitled to this opinion.

But I know your opinion already ... so either there is somebody else in this forum to have an opinion other than vajrayana view or I can leave it at that. Just was a try.

I guess vajrayanists dominate Mahayana forums. Nevermind.


Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

[
The vajrayana tenets belong to the vajrayana.

Kind regards

What evidence do you have that your assertions are valid within the Mahayana?

Whate evidence do you have that the Vajrayana view on this is different from the Mahayana view?

In the end I see a baseless assertion as the OP.

Can you provide any evidence that a disciple may know when their teacher has no more to offer?

Of course not, so your premise is still baseless - in the Theravada also.

[ground]

Can you provide any evidence that a disciple may know when their teacher has no more to offer?

If you read what I have written you will recognize that I did not fabricate such a materialistic context.

Of course not, so your premise is still baseless - in the Theravada also.

I do not care about traditions in the context of the 8fold path. What you call my premise actually is your premise and not mine.
But of course all premises are without support, i.e they are "baseless".

kind regards

[Tilopa]

In order to receive benefit, one has to find its source. Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left. As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him.

It's a ridiculous and sadly misguided notion. I hope you don't really believe it and unless you are just being deliberately provocative you have obviously never received or never properly understood Mahayana teachings.

[Blue Garuda]

Can you provide any evidence that a disciple may know when their teacher has no more to offer?

If you read what I have written you will recognize that I did not fabricate such a materialistic context.

Quote you:

''Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left. As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him. ''

As soon as the disciple has received benefit...............so it is the disciple's decision. Unless they are omniscient, your premise is false, based on the 'feeling' of the disciple. Again - give it up, it's just nonsensical. You know it.

[gregkavarnos]

Don't feed the troll! Trolls thrive on the negative emotions they engender, this is detrimental to you and the troll. The question has been answered in another thread/forum so it does not need to be answered again.

[Tilopa]

Don't feed the troll!

Reluctantly and sadly I have also come to the conclusion TMingyur is a troll. It's a shame because he seems to be a highly intelligent person.

[conebeckham]

In life, I usually find that if something is beneficial, I stick with it. If it stops being beneficial, or becomes detrimental, well, then, I leave it.


But hey, that's just me! TMingyur, you're free to do as you wish!

[Dexing]

In order to receive benefit, one has to find its source. Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left.

Should be? Why?

Benefit is received from loving-kindness, for example. Why should one then leave loving-kindness, and where would that take them?

As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him.

Never settle down.

Again, why?

Perhaps the benefit you initially receive is mundane and quickly perishes. Then what, do you go back to the teacher and apologize for having left prematurely, before having attained the essence of his teaching?

Never settle down... Okay, I can appreciate that. But even when one travels about to practice under other teachers, one never "leaves" his original teacher.

"Homage to the Original Teacher Śākyamuni Buddha" after all...

[ground]

To reply to those who impulsively argue form the perspective of tenets appears futile to me. So I leave them with their view.

In life, I usually find that if something is beneficial, I stick with it. If it stops being beneficial, or becomes detrimental, well, then, I leave it.

Well that sounds reasonable. So it is a matter of whether and how to detect beneficial or detrimental.

In order to receive benefit, one has to find its source. Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left.

Should be? Why?

Benefit is received from loving-kindness, for example. Why should one then leave loving-kindness, and where would that take them?

You mean the loving-kindness you receive from a teacher?

As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him.

Never settle down.

Again, why?

Perhaps the benefit you initially receive is mundane and quickly perishes. Then what, do you go back to the teacher and apologize for having left prematurely, before having attained the essence of his teaching?

So there is also the expectation that there will be given something "better" that is the basis of not leaving?

"Homage to the Original Teacher Śākyamuni Buddha" after all...

Yes. It is not possible to leave him once it is decided to practice the path.

Kind regards

[Adamantine]

I am not sure if Tmingyur means something along the lines of "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him."
It doesn't quite seem that way. But if he was riffing on that idea, then it is about not getting attached to an external representation of "Buddha", outside of one's own mind, right? But then Tmingyur also has problems with the notion of "Buddha Nature", so that can't be what he's getting at.

The thing about having a realized being (Bodhisattva, Buddha, etc.) show us the kindness of
overseeing our purification, is that whenever we begin to cling to one thing or another, even at a certain point the outer form of the teacher themselves, a true teacher will always immediately assist you in cutting that tendency. But as for this latter type of clinging, this is only an obstruction once one has actually achieved a very advanced level of realization, -when one's mind is truly no different from the Guru, or Buddha himself. At that point looking myopically to the external teacher is just another habitual tendency. But for most of us, we are at the stage where we need to cultivate precisely great devotion, respect, gratitude and pure-vision towards our teachers, especially if they are our Vajra Gurus. . . and to put great trust in them, rather then our own deeply ingrained habitual emotional and intellectual traps. This is the only way to begin the practice of Guru yoga, which is the essence of the path, where our minds can actually merge with the wisdom minds of our teachers. This is, of course, a Vajrayana belief. But Vajrayana is the natural extension of Mahayana, it is still Mahayana in essence. So I don't believe the Mahayana systems differ in many respects on this point. Looking at Zen Roshi's and their relationship to disciples, for example, there seems to be a lot in common. What Mahayana tradition is there where teachers are viewed as disposable?

[ground]

But if he was riffing on that idea, then it is about not getting attached to an external representation of "Buddha", outside of one's own mind, right? But then Tmingyur also has problems with the notion of "Buddha Nature", so that can't be what he's getting at.

That's interesting. So you think that one has to be taken, either an external or an internal one.

What Mahayana tradition is there where teachers are viewed as disposable?

Teachers are certainly not disposable generally and in the first place. That of course is nothing specific for Mahayana but for Theravada and all non-buddhist traditions and worldly skills as well.

Kind regards

[Dexing]

You mean the loving-kindness you receive from a teacher?

No, I mean the loving-kindness you give to others. By practicing loving-kindness you receive a multitude of benefits. The source of such benefit would be loving-kindness. Do you propose that loving-kindness should be abandoned?

So there is also the expectation that there will be given something "better" that is the basis of not leaving?

Not necessarily. One experiences the benefit of following a teacher's instructions, and then develops confidence that this teacher is one to follow, and so continues to study under this teacher. As you said; "It is not possible to leave him once it is decided to practice the path."

If one simply experiences a little peace and gladness as a result of Dharma study, and then leaves, one will not reach liberation or supreme Bodhi. Yet, if this teacher says that their instructions will lead to peace and gladness as well as liberation and supreme Bodhi, and the mundane benefits have been received, why should one leave this teacher rather than to continue study and practice under them?

[ground]

You mean the loving-kindness you receive from a teacher?

No, I mean the loving-kindness you give to others. By practicing loving-kindness you receive a multitude of benefits. The source of such benefit would be loving-kindness. Do you propose that loving-kindness should be abandoned?

Of course not. I am missing the point were this relates to "teacher" however. "Leaving the teacher" must not mean "having aversion toward".

So there is also the expectation that there will be given something "better" that is the basis of not leaving?

Not necessarily. One experiences the benefit of following a teacher's instructions, and then develops confidence that this teacher is one to follow, and so continues to study under this teacher. As you said; "It is not possible to leave him once it is decided to practice the path."

If one simply experiences a little peace and gladness as a result of Dharma study, and then leaves, one will not reach liberation or supreme Bodhi. Yet, if this teacher says that their instructions will lead to peace and gladness as well as liberation and supreme Bodhi, and the mundane benefits have been received, why should one leave this teacher rather than to continue study and practice under them?

"leaving" may imply different things:

1. being disappointed and therefore leaving and looking for something "better"
2. having generated aversion due to being disappointed
3. being grateful and keeping "in one's heart" what has been received but not expect anything further, i.e. being content with what was taught and dwell on that from then on, i.e. integrating that what has been received and all future undertakings.
4. other possibilities (?)

as to 3: this may imply both, depending on the appearance of "teacher" but still not being dependent on "teacher as such"

Kind regards

[Adamantine]

But if he was riffing on that idea, then it is about not getting attached to an external representation of "Buddha", outside of one's own mind, right? But then Tmingyur also has problems with the notion of "Buddha Nature", so that can't be what he's getting at.

That's interesting. So you think that one has to be taken, either an external or an internal one.

I really am not sure how you derived that from my comments you quoted.

What Mahayana tradition is there where teachers are viewed as disposable?

Teachers are certainly not disposable generally and in the first place. That of course is nothing specific for Mahayana but for Theravada and all non-buddhist traditions and worldly skills as well.

Well however you want to put it then: -what Mahayana tradition is there that instructs one to leave a teacher as soon as one finds some benefit?

[Dexing]

You mean the loving-kindness you receive from a teacher?

No, I mean the loving-kindness you give to others. By practicing loving-kindness you receive a multitude of benefits. The source of such benefit would be loving-kindness. Do you propose that loving-kindness should be abandoned?

Of course not. I am missing the point were this relates to "teacher" however.

In the opening post you said;

"In order to receive benefit, one has to find its source. Once benefit has been received the source of benefit should be left."

My comment on loving-kindness being a source of great benefit is in response to this. You say one should of course not abandon loving-kindness, even though it is a source of benefit.

If you liken it to a student-teacher relationship, as in;

"As soon as you have received benefit from a teacher, immediately leave him."

Then my comment still stands in this case. If you agree that loving-kindness should not be abandoned, then you should agree that the teacher should not be left, as you suggested.

You have logically contradicted yourself then, to where I am unclear where you even stand now. Do you suggest leaving your teacher or not?