Without Right View coming first everything else would be based on ignorance. It should not be the job of Dhamma teachers to teach worldly relaxation methods, there are a multitude of places where that could be learned. A Dhamma teacher should be teaching Dhamma and since only a Buddha knows the minds and capabilities of his listeners, the teacher should start at the beginning i.e. Right View. Also it is a linear scheme in the sense that you cannot start the ball rolling without Right View.Dan74 wrote:Hmmm....retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dan,
Apologies, I actually quoted a different sutta to that which I intended to quote. This is the one I was thinking of.
SN 45.1Bhikkhu Bodhi : Connected Discourses, page 1523."Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome states, with shamelessness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following along. For an unwise person immersed in ignorance, wrong view springs up. For one of wrong view, wrong intention springs up. For one of wrong intention, wrong speech springs up. For one of wrong speech, wrong action springs up. For one of wrong action, wrong livelihood springs up. For one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort springs up. For one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness springs up. For one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration springs up.
Bhikkhus, true knowledge is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame and fear of wrongdoing following along. For a wise person who has arrived at true knowledge, right view springs up. For one of right view, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. For one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up."
Does that more directly address your question?
Metta,
Retro.
Well, do you think you can have the Right View without right livelihood, right mindfulness and right concentration, for instance? Surely this linear scheme is a simplification.
But I am not entirely sure where the difference in views lies. KB was unhappy with a teacher who seemingly "dumbed down" Dhamma to mindfulness of the breath. Now if that's all he teaches, then his "Buddhism" is rather limited, I agree. All I meant was that in that particular instance that may have been the right advice (as Goofaholix described in more detail above). Is this controversial?
Adhamma
Re: Adhamma
Re: Adhamma
Which part of Right View do you think is essential before anything else?Also it is a linear scheme in the sense that you cannot start the ball rolling without Right View.
_/|\_
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Adhamma
While the way it is presented in scripture might lead one to believe that Right View is a pre-requisite to practice in reality it often doesn't work that way.Brizzy wrote:Without Right View coming first everything else would be based on ignorance. It should not be the job of Dhamma teachers to teach worldly relaxation methods, there are a multitude of places where that could be learned. A Dhamma teacher should be teaching Dhamma and since only a Buddha knows the minds and capabilities of his listeners, the teacher should start at the beginning i.e. Right View. Also it is a linear scheme in the sense that you cannot start the ball rolling without Right View.
It didn't work that way for me, I came to practice with a lot of incorrect preconcieved ideas and these changed over time as my practice developed.
One only has to listen to what's behind the questions that come up during question time on retreats to realise that a lot of people come to practice with some degree of wrong view.
It's them submitting to the process of practice that enable their view to change.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Adhamma
It was the same with me!
I think it's pretty uncontroversial that before building anything one has to lay foundations. And in case of Dhamma, these foundations are basically the Right View and sila. But for the foundations to even begin to solidify other aspects have to be developed to some extent, otherwise even the best teachings on the Right View will be misunderstood and perverted.
So it is not about discounting the importance of Right View but about a flexible organic approach to Dhamma teaching (and practice) as contrasted with a linear curriculum-like approach. I've been exposed to both (my very first retreat was with a lay Theravada teacher) and the latter didn't really strike a chord with me.
Of course, it can work with others, the tried and true formulas often bear great results. In my view though the great teachers of all traditions make the teachings their own and adapt them to the audience. I saw it recently with Ajahn Sumedho, I've seen it with my teacher and of course read it in the teachings of great masters.
I think it's pretty uncontroversial that before building anything one has to lay foundations. And in case of Dhamma, these foundations are basically the Right View and sila. But for the foundations to even begin to solidify other aspects have to be developed to some extent, otherwise even the best teachings on the Right View will be misunderstood and perverted.
So it is not about discounting the importance of Right View but about a flexible organic approach to Dhamma teaching (and practice) as contrasted with a linear curriculum-like approach. I've been exposed to both (my very first retreat was with a lay Theravada teacher) and the latter didn't really strike a chord with me.
Of course, it can work with others, the tried and true formulas often bear great results. In my view though the great teachers of all traditions make the teachings their own and adapt them to the audience. I saw it recently with Ajahn Sumedho, I've seen it with my teacher and of course read it in the teachings of great masters.
_/|\_
Re: Adhamma
As a teacher - not of dhamma, of course - I've got to say that every teacher must start with his/her students' existing knowledge, skills and aspirations. Starting anywhere else will leave students completely adrift or bore them silly or fail to connect in some other way and they will (a) get nothing out of the teaching (b) not come back and (c) often be turned off the subject completely - as in, 'Yeah, I went to a meditation class once but it was a load of rubbish - all they did was chant in some weird language.'
So whoever is teaching a walk-in one-off class has to assume some degree of goodwill and a large degree of ignorance, and take it from there without teaching anything that is actually wrong. Anything that has to be skipped over in this process can be taught later, so long as the students get enough out of the first class to want to continue - and, if we value what we are teaching, what we want most of all is for them to continue.
Teaching such a class becomes a juggling act: how much needs to be said about background and fundamentals, how much attention can be given to an informed questioner without losing the rest of the group, how much can a topic can be simplified without actually misleading the students in a way that will become an obstacle later. A teacher who really knows his/her subject will manage it better than a one who doesn't, but experience of similar sessions plays a large part too and so does sheer teaching skill.
I wouldn't presume to say whether KB's teacher knew his subject or not on the basis of the incident in the OP, although I do think the question may have been handled better. Something like, 'Perhaps we can talk about that afterwards,' might have been the best response, but such things are very situation-specific.
Every time I work with a new bunch of students, I do it a bit differently: they are different, I am different and the setting is different. And after every time I do it, I think, 'Hey, it would have been better to say X at that point because it would have been a better lead in to Y,' or some such thing.
The other thought that came to mind while reading the thread was an image, a visualisation, of the learning path which I like and which may resonate with some of you. I find it helpful to think of it as a spiral staircase, not a straight one: progressing from one step to the next takes you around in a circle, and you reach the same point again but at a higher level. For instance, Right Speech supports and encourages Right Action and that encourages Right Livelihood; that improved ethical base supports Right Effort and Mindfulness which refine Right Views and Right Understanding and strengthen your Right Intention ... and with all that in place, you will be even more more mindful of Right Speech and Right Action, and so it goes.
Why do I bring that up here?
Simply because anyone can step onto that staircase at whichever rung they are level with at the time, and eventually their knowledge will be completed.
In keeping with the first part of this post, I'd better say right now that what I have I have could certainly be said better, but it's the best way I can say it right here and now.
Kim
So whoever is teaching a walk-in one-off class has to assume some degree of goodwill and a large degree of ignorance, and take it from there without teaching anything that is actually wrong. Anything that has to be skipped over in this process can be taught later, so long as the students get enough out of the first class to want to continue - and, if we value what we are teaching, what we want most of all is for them to continue.
Teaching such a class becomes a juggling act: how much needs to be said about background and fundamentals, how much attention can be given to an informed questioner without losing the rest of the group, how much can a topic can be simplified without actually misleading the students in a way that will become an obstacle later. A teacher who really knows his/her subject will manage it better than a one who doesn't, but experience of similar sessions plays a large part too and so does sheer teaching skill.
I wouldn't presume to say whether KB's teacher knew his subject or not on the basis of the incident in the OP, although I do think the question may have been handled better. Something like, 'Perhaps we can talk about that afterwards,' might have been the best response, but such things are very situation-specific.
Every time I work with a new bunch of students, I do it a bit differently: they are different, I am different and the setting is different. And after every time I do it, I think, 'Hey, it would have been better to say X at that point because it would have been a better lead in to Y,' or some such thing.
The other thought that came to mind while reading the thread was an image, a visualisation, of the learning path which I like and which may resonate with some of you. I find it helpful to think of it as a spiral staircase, not a straight one: progressing from one step to the next takes you around in a circle, and you reach the same point again but at a higher level. For instance, Right Speech supports and encourages Right Action and that encourages Right Livelihood; that improved ethical base supports Right Effort and Mindfulness which refine Right Views and Right Understanding and strengthen your Right Intention ... and with all that in place, you will be even more more mindful of Right Speech and Right Action, and so it goes.
Why do I bring that up here?
Simply because anyone can step onto that staircase at whichever rung they are level with at the time, and eventually their knowledge will be completed.
In keeping with the first part of this post, I'd better say right now that what I have I have could certainly be said better, but it's the best way I can say it right here and now.
Kim
Re: Adhamma
I don't really know.Dan74 wrote:Which part of Right View do you think is essential before anything else?Also it is a linear scheme in the sense that you cannot start the ball rolling without Right View.
As a personal view, kamma and the things it raises like gratitude would be a good start.
Re: Adhamma
I agree that it is an organic approach, in that certain parts of the path will reflect on other parts.Dan74 wrote:It was the same with me!
I think it's pretty uncontroversial that before building anything one has to lay foundations. And in case of Dhamma, these foundations are basically the Right View and sila. But for the foundations to even begin to solidify other aspects have to be developed to some extent, otherwise even the best teachings on the Right View will be misunderstood and perverted.
So it is not about discounting the importance of Right View but about a flexible organic approach to Dhamma teaching (and practice) as contrasted with a linear curriculum-like approach. I've been exposed to both (my very first retreat was with a lay Theravada teacher) and the latter didn't really strike a chord with me.
Of course, it can work with others, the tried and true formulas often bear great results. In my view though the great teachers of all traditions make the teachings their own and adapt them to the audience. I saw it recently with Ajahn Sumedho, I've seen it with my teacher and of course read it in the teachings of great masters.
The primary importance of "Right View" must not be underestimated. Without it someone could be practicing excellent sila, but could degenerate quite easily - if someone who had right view also had excellent sila then degeneration would be less likely.
The eightfold path - like all things in this world is dependently originated - without right intention, right speech would not occur and without right view, right intention would not occur. That is not to say that there are not "good or well meaning" intentions, but without right view - they are not Right intentions.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Adhamma
Very well said, Brizzy. They don't all start with Right (samma) for nothing!
Metta,
Retro.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Adhamma
If I may quibble, the problem isn't that a dhamma teacher is teaching something other than dhamma (if a dhamma teacher teaches someone how to do pilates or tie their shoelaces this isn't a problem). The problem is when someone misrepresents adhamma as dhamma, since this confuses people about dhamma. There should be no problem with a dhamma teacher teaching breathing meditation or 'worldly relaxation techniques' as long as it is made clear that this is not all that Buddhism is about.Brizzy wrote:A Dhamma teacher should be teaching Dhamma...
Re: Adhamma
I think that the problem arises, because "meditation" is actually an advanced practice in Buddhism. Sotapanna can be achieved without formal sitting. The problem being that meditation is taught as if it was the start of the path. An ordained monk could teach metta(not the meditation) or genorosity or sila to those people not ready to be buddhists or just discovering Buddhism, but it seems strange that an advanced practice should be taught so readily. Personally I think it is the western attitude of wanting the "highest" straight away, and not wanting to put in the groundwork.Shonin wrote:If I may quibble, the problem isn't that a dhamma teacher is teaching something other than dhamma (if a dhamma teacher teaches someone how to do pilates or tie their shoelaces this isn't a problem). The problem is when someone misrepresents adhamma as dhamma, since this confuses people about dhamma. There should be no problem with a dhamma teacher teaching breathing meditation or 'worldly relaxation techniques' as long as it is made clear that this is not all that Buddhism is about.Brizzy wrote:A Dhamma teacher should be teaching Dhamma...
p.s. I hope I don't have to contend with an ordained monk teaching me pilates!
Re: Adhamma
We seem to be getting this problem again of a Theravada-based view being generalised to all of Buddhism.Brizzy wrote:I think that the problem arises, because "meditation" is actually an advanced practice in Buddhism. Sotapanna can be achieved without formal sitting. The problem being that meditation is taught as if it was the start of the path. An ordained monk could teach metta(not the meditation) or genorosity or sila to those people not ready to be buddhists or just discovering Buddhism, but it seems strange that an advanced practice should be taught so readily. Personally I think it is the western attitude of wanting the "highest" straight away, and not wanting to put in the groundwork.
p.s. I hope I don't have to contend with an ordained monk teaching me pilates!
Perhaps in Theravada, meditation is kept as something special or 'advanced' for monks and nuns. I respect that this may be the Theravada tradition. However, it is not matched by my experience practising with a Theravada-focussed group.
It is certainly not a view shared across Buddhism as a whole - Zen (which I'm very familiar with) being an obvious exception. It is also (as a near-qualified Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy teacher) certainly not my opinion or experience that meditation is 'too advanced' for lay people. I have seen many people's suffering diminish dramatically because of meditation. I would make mindfulness meditation and zazen as accessible as possible.
Re: Adhamma
Hi Brizzy,
I hung out at my local Wat for over six months, learning by example about being part of a supportive community, before we had a monk with good enough English to give instruction to non-Thai speakers. It was another six months or so before I attempted any serious study. For me, it was extremely helpful that I had the opportunity to have competent instruction that I accepted and practised at face value, without filtering it through preconceptions of what the Dhamma was about. I recall seeing people with more background knowledge turning up and arguing with the monks about some technical point or other, and not really listening...
Mike
I certainly agree that a proper grounding is essential. And, personally, I would also add dissecting complex suttas to the advanced basket.Brizzy wrote: The problem being that meditation is taught as if it was the start of the path. An ordained monk could teach metta(not the meditation) or genorosity or sila to those people not ready to be buddhists or just discovering Buddhism, but it seems strange that an advanced practice should be taught so readily. Personally I think it is the western attitude of wanting the "highest" straight away, and not wanting to put in the groundwork.!
I hung out at my local Wat for over six months, learning by example about being part of a supportive community, before we had a monk with good enough English to give instruction to non-Thai speakers. It was another six months or so before I attempted any serious study. For me, it was extremely helpful that I had the opportunity to have competent instruction that I accepted and practised at face value, without filtering it through preconceptions of what the Dhamma was about. I recall seeing people with more background knowledge turning up and arguing with the monks about some technical point or other, and not really listening...
Mike
-
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
- Location: By the River Thames near London.
Re: Adhamma
But you see there it is again Shonin. If you go back to the OP and check out the posters profile you will that he identifies with the Theravada,Shonin wrote:We seem to be getting this problem again of a Theravada-based view being generalised to all of Buddhism.Brizzy wrote:I think that the problem arises, because "meditation" is actually an advanced practice in Buddhism. Sotapanna can be achieved without formal sitting. The problem being that meditation is taught as if it was the start of the path. An ordained monk could teach metta(not the meditation) or genorosity or sila to those people not ready to be buddhists or just discovering Buddhism, but it seems strange that an advanced practice should be taught so readily. Personally I think it is the western attitude of wanting the "highest" straight away, and not wanting to put in the groundwork.
p.s. I hope I don't have to contend with an ordained monk teaching me pilates!
Perhaps in Theravada, meditation is kept as something special or 'advanced' for monks and nuns. I respect that this may be the Theravada tradition. However, it is not matched by my experience practising with a Theravada-focussed group.
It is certainly not a view shared across Buddhism as a whole - Zen (which I'm very familiar with) being an obvious exception. It is also (as a near-qualified Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy teacher) certainly not my opinion or experience that meditation is 'too advanced' for lay people. I have seen many people's suffering diminish dramatically because of meditation. I would make mindfulness meditation and zazen as accessible as possible.
He may for all I know have a wider perspective than that of the Theravada he may not.
He has asked on a Theravada Forum for a response to a particular situation he encountered. It is entirely to be expected that the replies he receives would be from a Theravada perspective ! But you insist on turning into a meta-discussion about the relationship between Buddhist schools.
Imagine if I came to Zen Forum International and everytime a Zen student asked something I replied that the problem was they werent seeing it in tems of the Theravada.. or some amorphous pan Buddhism..
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Re: Adhamma
No, the equivalent would be asking a question about 'Buddhism' on a Zen forum and the Zen take on the matter being presented as the same as the Buddhist take. Zen is not synonymous with Buddhism, nor is Theravada. I actually have come across this 'Only (Soto) Zen is true Buddhism' attitude in some places and have criticised it accordingly. Naturally I would challenge it on a Theravada forum too or a Tibetan one.
I think this is the third time this has happened since I arrived here a few days ago. My words seem to be falling on deaf ears, so there seems little point in continuing to flog this dead horse.
Note to self: in Dhamma Wheel, 'Buddhism' means 'Theravada Buddhism'.
I think this is the third time this has happened since I arrived here a few days ago. My words seem to be falling on deaf ears, so there seems little point in continuing to flog this dead horse.
Note to self: in Dhamma Wheel, 'Buddhism' means 'Theravada Buddhism'.
-
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
- Location: By the River Thames near London.
Re: Adhamma
Shonin The forum heading says
" DHAMMA WHEEL "
" A Buddhist discussion forum on the dhamma of the Theravada ".....
Clearly this does not mean exclusively for the discussion of the Theravada.
However you must not be suprised if the default tone is that of the Theravada.
It does what it says on the tin.
" DHAMMA WHEEL "
" A Buddhist discussion forum on the dhamma of the Theravada ".....
Clearly this does not mean exclusively for the discussion of the Theravada.
However you must not be suprised if the default tone is that of the Theravada.
It does what it says on the tin.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Bhikku Bodhi.