« Teachers who are Trojan horses | Main | What is potential isn't actual »

October 10, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I tend to think that there is room for a number of different types of teacher, and what is important is not the teacher but the seriousness of the student and his desire for spiritual transformation. But I'm scratching my head over why Adyashanti would be lumped in with the "teachers of the mediocre" in your entry. I have downloaded and have listened to the resources he offers free online & have read his interviews. On the other hand, 5 minutes of watching Tolle on TV was more than enough for me. As for people you categorize as "mediocrities" his students (in satsangs) seem to be mature, sincere professional people. But admittedly, in a larger sense, yes, we are all* spiritual mediocrities, since we wish to behave better, contribute more, enjoy more self-knowledge & have more self control.

*except for possibly yourself

JB, puthujjana means a common person, one of the many, the majority; an average person of the world. Puthu in this sense means many or most of. Needless to say "most" people don't strive on the Buddha's path of transcendence.

Mediocre in its sense of middling or common is not that far off, though etymologically not perfect since puthu does not really refer to a middle or median. It is very similar to the Greek "hoi polloi"

Fascinating. How do you know about the everyday lives of people such as Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti? I'm astonished that you know these people well enough to comment not only about how they conduct their everyday lives, but also about the content of their characters.

Also fascinating, how do you know the mind of the Buddha well enough to state that he "saw no need to teach"? And why do you think the Buddha then spent decades teaching? Why would the the Supremely Enlighted One engage in needless activity?

If you look back at the life story of the Buddha as conveyed in the various canons, you will see that teaching was high on the Buddha's agenda from shortly after his enlightenment. At first, he thought he wouldn't teach, not because he didn't see a need, but because he didn't think anybody would be able to understand the path.

Then a deity appeared to him and urged him to teach, and with his wisdom eye the Buddha saw that there were beings who were ready to understand the path. So he taught.

The entire point of becoming a Buddha is to establish a Sasana and reintroduce (or teach) the Dharma in a world system from which the Dharma has disappeared. No matter which canon you prefer, the message is the same in all of them: The Buddha spent countless lifetimes cultivating merits so that he could be a great teacher.

And when he taught, the Buddha taught on various levels to various people depending on their capacities. Some of his teachings are basic morality, intended for "prithagjana." But that word does not mean "mediocre people," as you choose to believe. Rather, it refers to people who have not yet understood the path. Yes, the Buddha taught to them, too.

The path was not taught in just one way. It was taught in many ways. And these teachings by other people whom you disparage are in fact helpful teachings for some people who may be at a different point along the path.

I don't undertand why you are so often so judgmental and vitriolic in your posts. And I wish you would stop portraying yourself as a Buddhist, because it makes Buddhism look bad.

This is True my Friend...But I do think that the mediocre teacher is helpful at this time ,for the mediocre masses...Everything is needed to slowing move the masses away from the illusion that they are separate from the Truth.All of us together are going Home...Everyone is doing the best that they can...Many people are not ready yet to let go of their story....It takes Time ,to realize that there is no Time...and no story......

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo