muni wrote:In another tread, which is closed, I saw about arrogance and the need to can ask on a forum and so on. So I wrote here a bit adapt to this tread.
Regarding that arrogance of mind, I learned to see that there is no complete awakening without "others". It is by them that we can fully be "enlightened". In short, by arrogance, we block this opportunity.
Just "some two cents".
I'm not sure that I understand. In saying that 'there is no complete awakening without "others"', I take it that you mean that there is no complete awakening without a teacher, and perhaps without Vajra siblings, that complete awakening cannot be achieved by someone in complete isolation without any relationship to others at crucial stages at least, and without transmission. This is presumably something which is not in dispute. What I'm not clear about is what you mean by "arrogance of mind" in this context. Does this refer to the attitude of someone who believes that he or she can achieve complete awakening completely alone without transmission from a qualified teacher and guidance from anyone else, to someone who believes that information acquired from reading books suffices for the achievement of complete enlightenment (in other words, that books render any connection with a teacher redundant), or does it apply to the attitude of one who believes neither of these things but does feel that the reading of appropriate books, in an appropriate way and spirit, can be helpful, particularly when certain books have been recommended by one's realised teacher? Or does the "arrogance of mind" to which you refer mean something completely different, and if so, what?
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche recommends that those who receive transmissions from him study certain texts to flesh out what he has transmitted, and he has written a prodigious amount of literature specifically for his students specifically to complement oral teachings. I take it that we agree that the reading of books is not a substitute for transmission from teacher to student, and that academic knowledge is no substitute for direct experience. Where is there "arrogance of mind" in this context?
If the contention is that the reading of books is harmful outside the context of direct introduction, oral transmission and understanding that what is being sought transcends the conceptual, I would be inclined to agree in particular contexts. The only way to come to know what coffee tastes like is actually to taste it, to take a flippant example, and no book or conceptual process can teach one what it tastes like. However, there are books about coffee which might lead certain readers to taste some coffee for themselves. Cashing the analogy with reference to Dharma, I'd guess that few Western followers of the Dharma would have come to the Dharma had they not encountered helpful books, and that most Westerners who have found teachers did so because they had done some reading before they encountered their teachers or had embarked upon serious practice. The progression, for not a few Westerners, is from an intellectual interest in the Dharma in consequence of which one reads books, some of which are academic and abstract, to a practical involvement which leads one to seek out a teacher and to practice. In that sense, while books are certainly no substitute for direct teaching and practice leading to direct experience which transcends concepts, they have helped many people, including me, onto the path.