Check your teacher's credentials carefully ...

[muon]

So I'm looking for a Theravadin Buddhist center in Vancouver, BC (personal interest), and Google kindly points me at www.theravada.ca (http://www.theravada.ca)

I look around, check out the web pages, and browse the writings. Looks pretty respectable and straightforward, right? Frequent meditation classes, links to a BC monastery, nothing too inflammatory. Quite respectable, overall.

Sort of on a lark, I type in the name of the chief teacher, a Mr. Brian Ruhe. Up comes http://pages.istar.ca/~bar/.
Some *very* interesting stuff comes up, particularly Adolph Hitler - the Bad Boy of Buddhism (http://pages.istar.ca/~bar/Chapter_13.PDF). Turns out that Hitler got all of his power and influence from channelling evil demons from higher realms. Goebbels too. Apparently the rest of his book contains interesting tidbits about how we should take Nostradamus seriously, how Buddhists should channel devas as part of their practice, etc.

Well, other than discovering a complete loony, what else did I learn? Probably the scariest thing for me is that if I hadn't gone through the trouble to do a little background search, I might have easily dropped in on this nutter's group, totally unsuspecting.

It makes me wonder if secularists like myself with an interest in Buddhism should even bother dealing with actual Buddhists ... yeah, I know, I'm drawing inappropriately broad generalizations, but geesh!

[Heathen Dawn]

oser, why are you looking for a guru to teach you? And why do you need to find a group for practising Buddhism?

[muon]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
oser, why are you looking for a guru to teach you? And why do you need to find a group for practising Buddhism?

Well, "guru" is not a word I would use, and I would avoid any teacher who uses it like the plague. The reason for my interest, however, is that I've been thinking I might like to give meditation a serious try. It is of course perfectly possible to do so without finding a group ... however, meditation really is a skill, and I expect that training with a qualified teacher would be of some benefit. Some things you just can't learn from reading a manual.

In short, the reason to look into groups is to get a source of technical advice. I don't really have any interest in studying under a teacher, if you know what I mean. Think of it as mental gardening--you can do most of it on your own, but every now and then you might want to go ask someone at the nursery for advice about weeds and such.

[triplew00t]

If you're looking for secularist Buddhists, stick to Zen IMHO. There are plenty of teachers out there who even deny an afterlife and reincarnation (in the sense that we percieve anything after death), much less demons and devas.

Nero

PS: Philosophical Taoists are pretty secular as well.

[muon]

Originally posted by triplew00t
If you're looking for secularist Buddhists, stick to Zen IMHO. There are plenty of teachers out there who even deny an afterlife and reincarnation (in the sense that we percieve anything after death), much less demons and devas.


Yes, Zen has some attractions, particularly since I'm learning Japanese. On the other hand, I'm rather put off by Zen's relative emphasis on studying under a teacher, and its tendency towards strong anti-intellectualism. There are secularish Theravadins as well, but they're perhaps a little harder to find than Zennists.

[Heathen Dawn]

Welcome to the club of "hard to find a like-minded group". I have the same problem every time I go to a pagan meetup. Those superstitious loons talk about magick, Aleister Crowley, Qabbalah, divination, astrology and spirit-channelling incessantly. But what else can I do, except bear with them? They're the only nature-oriented group I know of. So for an atheist like me, there has to be some sacrifice made. I still enjoy those meetups; as for the supernatural stuff, I just take care to have it go in one ear and out the other.

[Doubting Didymus]

So for an atheist like me, there has to be some sacrifice made.

Just remember: Do it humanely. ;)

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
oser, why are you looking for a guru to teach you? And why do you need to find a group for practising Buddhism?

It's a lot easier to learn if you have some contact with someone who actually knows what they're talking about. You'll learn 100x more if you find a good, trustworthy teacher than if you you try to study alone. After all, a wise man knows how little he knows :)

As for groups, it's extremely handy to be able to compare experiences with people who're on the same path. They can offer support and guidance. Hell, they can even be your friends.

At the end of the day, it is the individual who has to do all the actual work, but doing it without any support from others would be just too hard, IMO. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot.

Asking for help is not a sign of weakness.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by oser
The reason for my interest, however, is that I've been thinking I might like to give meditation a serious try. It is of course perfectly possible to do so without finding a group ... however, meditation really is a skill, and I expect that training with a qualified teacher would be of some benefit. Some things you just can't learn from reading a manual. I can follow your thoughts. I think one must distinguish the teaching from a teacher. I have done a (colorfull) page in German language from some thoughts of Jiddu Krishnamurti on meditaton doormann.org/jkmedit.htm. Maybe you hve ability to translate that text to English. I don't know, whether the text is available in English as well.

Best.

Volker

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by andy_d
Asking for help is not a sign of weakness.

I never suggested so. I get a lot of help in ritual planning from the pagans I meet.

However, finding is a teacher is another matter. A teacher may be a good thing, but if he abuses his position he becomes a guru. And you know what gurus do to their followers: enslave them.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html

[andy_d]

"Guru" is just an Indian word for "teacher" mate. Substitute one word for the other if it makes you happy.

What's a stop a "teacher" from abusing a position of authority? I don't really see that the distinction you're making between the two words actually exists.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I think one must distinguish the teaching from a teacher. One cite in addition:

"Whoever differs from the teacher in his thinking is in the duality. Therefore, I put again and again worth on this truth that if you hangs on the physical existence of a teacher, you reach no liberation. Our mind is in the inside and our thoughts are also in the inside. The asker in the inside is the student, and who is answering in the inside is the teacher. If the asker gets satisfying answers to all his questions, he becomes quiet. If our mind doesn't have any further questions or if your mind doesn't have any more desire, it becomes quiet to know something. This condition of the silence is known as the union of teacher and students." (Faqir Chand)

[Heathen Dawn]

"Guru" comes from Sanskrit guruh, literally meaning "heavy", specifically meaning "a respectable person" or "an honorable person". A guru is not merely a teacher; he is venerated.

[andy_d]

That's correct Heathen Dawn. Doesn't actually prove your point though, does it? :p

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by andy_d
That's correct Heathen Dawn. Doesn't actually prove your point though, does it? :p

Why not? I consider "teacher" and "guru" to have different connotations. "Teacher" is neutral: one who teaches. "Guru" is sinister: a teacher who cannot be questioned, a spiritual leader who must be obeyed. I can certainly say that a teacher whose head swells up a bit too much becomes a guru. It's a question of how much authority the person wields.

[andy_d]

Hmm, I think you're projecting your own ideas onto those words.

The very idea of a "spiritual leader who must be obeyed" is anathema to Buddhism.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by andy_d
Hmm, I think you're projecting your own ideas onto those words.


Maybe. I've had my share of gurus through life - Orthodox Jewish rabbis who told me how to tie my shoelaces, how to urinate, what to read and what to think. I now have an aversion towards all those who call themselves "spiritual leaders". I will not have any masters, gurus or gods to rule me.


The very idea of a "spiritual leader who must be obeyed" is anathema to Buddhism.

But as oser has found out, Buddhists are human beings with all the weakness involved. Power corrupts; there's nothing to stop a popular, charismatic teacher from having his head swell up and become a venerated, uncriticisable guru. The fear I have with teachers of any kind is that they might steal my "soul".

[Toto]

The guru problem is a real one, even for those who think that they have gotten a lot of benefits from a guru. The pupil has to trust the guru enough to stop resisting what the guru wants to teach, but humans who set themselves up as gurus have been known to abuse the power that comes with that. The history of eastern teachers in the US is a long illustration of that - teachers who appear to speak pearls of ancient and modern wisdom, and then are found to be sleeping with their pupils or abusing them financially.

But sometimes you have to take that risk. You can't avoid doctors just because some of them are incompetant butchers. And I think the current generation of gurus have a lot more insight into the problem than the generation that included that Bhagwan Rajneesh.

If you are looking for a secular version of Buddhism, you could look for someone associated with Jack Kornfeld's Insight Meditation.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Toto
But sometimes you have to take that risk. You can't avoid doctors just because some of them are incompetant butchers.


That's not a good analogy. A doctor had better do his job properly, or face a malpractice lawsuit. There are no such sanctions concering vendors of spirituality.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn

Power corrupts; there's nothing to stop a popular, charismatic teacher from having his head swell up and become a venerated, uncriticisable guru.

Very true.

IMO, the onus is on the student to remain critical. As Toto said, the student has to have confidence in and respect the teacher, or else s/he won't learn much. However, if one suspends one's critical faculties, then you're opening yourself up to have your trust abused.

I think it's important when evaluating a teacher to look for one who doesn't allow his students to "sit on his knee", as i've heard one teacher say. A good teacher shouldn't allow his students to become dependant, but should rather make them think for themselves.

Still, there will always be those who want a "cuddly" type of teacher, who will do all their thinking for them. These are the people who are most at risk of getting abused. There's certainly enough unscrupulous people out there willing to take the gullible for a ride.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

People who say that you don't need a teacher have their points of view and often make a good case.

Personally, I think having a teacher is damn good but you really do need to suss them out carefully.

I think that if you find a teacher who considers themself to exist for the sake of their students rather than their students existing to augment the teacher's own ego and wealth, and if they can explain philosophical points or refer you to someone who can and if they really can teach and actually do hold lineage (presuming that you're practicing something transmitted by a lineage of course) and - if they practice empathy and compassion at a very real level - then I'd say that you've found yourself a teacher.

Of course if you don't want something transmitted by a lineage, then cobble your own thing together from whatever bits suit you (preferably without cultural/spiritual theft) and make the rest up as you go along. As long as it doesn't involve crime, who's going to stop you?

[andy_d]

I think it's also crucial to find someone who practices what they preach.

If they're not a living embodiment of the philosophy, why listen to them? They're just flapping their lips.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by andy_d
I think it's also crucial to find someone who practices what they preach.

If they're not a living embodiment of the philosophy, why listen to them? They're just flapping their lips.

Yes, that's absolutely crucial!

One should also pay careful attention to the students. The capacity of any Lama, "Guru" or any other kind of teacher will be reflected in their students.

If the students know their stuff and can actually make sense of the philosophy without being puffed up and pretentious and if they too sincerely endeavour to practice what is taught then this is a good indication that the teacher is worth learning from.

If students are arrogant and supercilious, if they think that they're spiritually superior because they're practicing Hevajra Tantra (just as an example) then they are often an indication that their teacher is not particularly great. Then of course the danger is that if you stay with that teacher, you'll end up becoming puffed up on dharma practice yourself which will certainly not be conducive to the realization of enlightenment (for example).

For anyone who is looking for a teacher, or has found one, don't allow yourself to be intimidated or bullied by more "advanced" students.

Wanker - "What do you think of Teacher 27B?"

New Student - "Oh he's okay!"

Wanker - (with apoplexy) "OKAY????!!! He's increeeeeeeedible!"

In a case like the above, I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask the wanker whether they were asking what you think or telling you what to think and then proceed to have as little to do with them as possible.

As for the teacher, s/he'll either crack them like an egg when the time is right and the message will sink in or s/he's not worth a pinch of shit.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

thank you for a very interesting thread.

as the old proverb goes... when the student is ready, the teacher appears.

one of the problems that people have in the west is that they do not know how to distinguish a genuine guru from a false guru. the word guru has as much or as little import as one chooses to place therein. words are not, in and of themselves, bad, evil or otherwise.

in many ways the west is regarded as being less spiritually advanced and this can lead many people into being duped by so-called gurus that have no actualization of the practice.

for meditation devoid of the religious elements, though still eastern in flavor, you may consider the Shamabala practices.

we really should be mindful not to become too enamored of our metaphor or we are likely to lose the meaning behind it.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Vajradhara
in many ways the west is regarded as being less spiritually advanced and this can lead many people into being duped by so-called gurus that have no actualization of the practice.

The West isn't less spiritually advanced, it's just less credulous, more critically thinking (I talk especially about Europe - not so the USA, which has too many Christian believers, who aren't critical thinkers by any stretch of imagination).

I hold that gurus are a Bad Thing™. Gurus wield authority that cannot be criticised. Yes, there are authorities in science of the Scientific West, but these authorities can be verified and criticised. But when the guru tells you that such and such is the way to union with the Transcendent, and that so and so are the ultimate secrets of the universe, how on earth do you verify those things? The guru who tells his pupils of chakras and energy fields is no different from the Islamic sheikh who describes afterlife paradise to his slavish disciples.

I despise all kinds of gurus with a passion. They are tyrants over the minds of men. When one comes to the correct conclusion that there are no gods and no masters, one becomes happy at last.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
The West isn't less spiritually advanced, it's just less credulous, more critically thinking (I talk especially about Europe - not so the USA, which has too many Christian believers, who aren't critical thinkers by any stretch of imagination).

I hold that gurus are a Bad Thing™. Gurus wield authority that cannot be criticised. Yes, there are authorities in science of the Scientific West, but these authorities can be verified and criticised. But when the guru tells you that such and such is the way to union with the Transcendent, and that so and so are the ultimate secrets of the universe, how on earth do you verify those things? The guru who tells his pupils of chakras and energy fields is no different from the Islamic sheikh who describes afterlife paradise to his slavish disciples.

I despise all kinds of gurus with a passion. They are tyrants over the minds of men. When one comes to the correct conclusion that there are no gods and no masters, one becomes happy at last.

Namaste HeathenDawn,

there is, in fact, a methodology used to determine if a guru is legitimate or not... though that may be a particular idiom of a particular tradition. in any event, the guru is not infalliable and is subject to the same rigorious testing as a monk or nun.

ah.. but it is different... Buddhism has intersubjective evidence of what the guru/teacher is talking about, usually.

there are three types of teachings that are given. ones that are clear and require no interpetation. ones that require reason and analysis to infer their object and ones that cannot be found through reason or analysis and require interpetation and explanation. we are enjoined to determine the meaning of the first two ourselves and we rely upon the guru to explain the meanings of the third type of teachings.

i would, however, generally posit that the west, as a whole, is less spiritually advanced than the east... if those distinctions are even worth the electrons they are occupying here :) and they may not be.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn


Originally posted by Toto
But sometimes you have to take that risk. You can't avoid doctors just because some of them are incompetant butchers.


That's not a good analogy. A doctor had better do his job properly, or face a malpractice lawsuit. There are no such sanctions concering vendors of spirituality.

There are some sanctions on false vendors of spirituality. Some have ended up in jail or socked with liability law suits.

And you can always examine the community of followers. If you see a large group of people who appear to work hard, give all their money to the guru, and have blank expressions, you know to run in the opposite direction. If the followers look happy but intelligent and seem to be moving with ease through life, there may be something you want to look into.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn

But when the guru tells you that such and such is the way to union with the Transcendent, and that so and so are the ultimate secrets of the universe, how on earth do you verify those things?

The guru who tells his pupils of chakras and energy fields is no different from the Islamic sheikh who describes afterlife paradise to his slavish disciples.


Verify by practice. Try it out and if it doesn't work, ditch it.

Gurus who tell their pupils of chakras and energy fields give them methods of working with the same, thus providing them with an opportunity to try it out and to ditch it if it doesn't work.

This actually is significantly different to the Islamic sheikh who describes afterlife paradise to slavish disciples.

With one, you get to try it out, see if the "guru" is bullshitting you or not and work with something if they aren't.

With the other you have to die to find out and then it's too late.

There is a difference.

I despise all kinds of gurus with a passion. They are tyrants over the minds of men. When one comes to the correct conclusion that there are no gods and no masters, one becomes happy at last.

I have met "gurus" who are indeed tyrants over the minds of men. I have also met teachers whose lives are dedicated to liberating the minds of men. Despising them all is your prerogative and if it contributes to your happiness then it's working for you and I wish you well with it.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Gurus wield authority that cannot be criticised.


Hmm, you state this as if it were fact, but I think it's really just your opinion.

As I have said, within the Buddhist system at least, there is no tradition of uncritical acceptance of teachings. In fact, exercising critical thinking is strongly emphasised. Nothing is to be taken on faith, as Waning Moon Conrad says above.

On a slight tangent, there are also traditionally considered to be not one, but three teachers available to a student. Namely the internal, external, and "secret" teachers. Of these, only the external teacher is another person. The other two are contained within the student. It would seem that the "guru" is outnumbered, even when he's alone with a student :D

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad
Verify by practice. Try it out and if it doesn't work, ditch it.

Gurus who tell their pupils of chakras and energy fields give them methods of working with the same, thus providing them with an opportunity to try it out and to ditch it if it doesn't work.


I'm pretty sure there is a standard set of excuses that revert the blame to the pupil if his guru's method doesn't work. Just like there is for failed prayer.


I have met "gurus" who are indeed tyrants over the minds of men. I have also met teachers whose lives are dedicated to liberating the minds of men. Despising them all is your prerogative and if it contributes to your happiness then it's working for you and I wish you well with it.

I've never had a good experience with spiritual teachers. On the one hand, rabbis made me follow a set of rules regulating me from head to toe, and warned me against criticising them, and on the other hand, a yoga master made me do physical excercises without explaining the "why" behind them. "Trust me, do as I say, and don't ask questions", that's what I got from all teachers. So I decided to "f**k 'em all". No teachers for me, unless it's a teacher who is ready to answer all my questions (when he knows the answer himself, of course; I don't despise lack of knowledge, I despise the hiding of knowledge).

Originally posted by andy_d
As I have said, within the Buddhist system at least, there is no tradition of uncritical acceptance of teachings. In fact, exercising critical thinking is strongly emphasised. Nothing is to be taken on faith, as Waning Moon Conrad says above.


What if I don't accept rebirth? OK, scratch rebirth, you say it's unnecessary for Buddhism. What if I don't accept the doctrine that desire leads to suffering? The Buddhist system states quite dogmatically, as absolute truth, that desire leads to suffering. I dispute that. So I can't, by definition, study under a Buddhist teacher.

[lugotorix]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
The Buddhist system states quite dogmatically, as absolute truth, that desire leads to suffering.
No, actually, it doesn't. Firstly, the Buddha stated several times in the Pali scriptures not to take his word for anything, but for his followers to investigate for themselves. He was very much non-dogmatic about his teachings.
Secondly, he did not say that desire (kama) leads to suffering. He said that the defilements (klesha) of attachment, aversion, and ignorance lead to suffering. If desire itself were the cause of suffering, liberation woulnd't be possible, since becoming enlightened first requires the desire to do so.

I dispute that. So I can't, by definition, study under a Buddhist teacher. If you took the Buddha's advice to heart and investigated his teachings thoroughly, I think you might make a good student of Buddhism -- you're skeptical and inquisitive. You'd keep any teachers you encounter on their toes.

lugotorix

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by lugotorix
No, actually, it doesn't. Firstly, the Buddha stated several times in the Pali scriptures not to take his word for anything, but for his followers to investigate for themselves. He was very much non-dogmatic about his teachings.
Secondly, he did not say that desire (kama) leads to suffering. He said that the defilements (klesha) of attachment, aversion, and ignorance lead to suffering. If desire itself were the cause of suffering, liberation woulnd't be possible, since becoming enlightened first requires the desire to do so.


OK, scratch another stereotype I had about Buddhism... :(


If you took the Buddha's advice to heart and investigated his teachings thoroughly, I think you might make a good student of Buddhism -- you're skeptical and inquisitive. You'd keep any teachers you encounter on their toes.


I have a (Japanese-English) book called "The Teaching of Buddha", quite a comprehensive introduction to Buddhism. I started reading it a few months ago, but I lost interest somewhere in the middle. Maybe I'll come back to that book in future, but currently I'm obsessed with filling my gaps in science - I've been reading a sh*tload of books about evolution, and what I read fills me with fascination that the various religions cannot hope to match.

My current philosophy of life is "eat, drink, copulate and study interesting things, for tomorrow you die".

[Vajradhara]

Namaste HD,

then you should really dig the Buddha :)

Sit
Rest
Work.

Alone with yourself,
Never weary.

On the edge of the forest
Live joyfully,
Without desire.

-Buddha

many are the descriptions of Buddhism namely, philosophy and religion. one that is often overlooked is that it is also a scientific, step by step methodology to produce altered states of consciousness in an individual. recall that Buddhism posits 5 increasingly subtle levels of consciousness, so when we can produce an altered state of consciousness we can access the 5 increasingly subtle levels.

i say scientific because it has a theory that makes definite predictions that can be observed and confirmed. i say methology because there is a step by step process that one can use to produce the very same state of consciousness as the Buddha.

andy_d has the right of it. we are, in fact, required to test and verify every bit of teaching we get. if it does not conform to the 3 Standards we must reject it. if it does, then we can accept it if we choose.

in Buddhism it is said that there are 84,000 Dharma Doors, each expounded for a particular people in a way that they can understand.

according to Bodhidharma, the First Patriarch of Zen, there are two ways by which one can enter the practice... reason or practice.

"MANY roads lead to the Path, but basically there are only two: reason and practice. To enter by reason means to realize the essence through instruction and to believe that all living things share the same true nature, which isn’t apparent because it’s shrouded by sensation and delusion. Those who turn from delusion back to reality, who meditate on walls, the absence of self and other, the oneness of mortal and sage, and who remain unmoved even by scriptures are in complete and unspoken agreement with reason. Without moving, without effort, they enter, we say, by reason.

To enter by practice refers to four all-inclusive practices: Suffering injustice, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing, and practicing the Dharma. First, suffering injustice. When those who search for the Path encounter adversity, they should think to themselves, "In Countless ages gone by, I’ve turned from the essential to the trivial and wandered through all manner of existence, often angry without cause and guilty of numberless transgressions."

Bodhidharma - Outline of Practice

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn

My current philosophy of life is "eat, drink, copulate and study interesting things, for tomorrow you die".


Hey, me too! :D

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
I'm pretty sure there is a standard set of excuses that revert the blame to the pupil if his guru's method doesn't work. Just like there is for failed prayer.

I'm sure you're right. I do know for a fact that when a person goes off chlorpromazine and the voices come back, it's their own fault for not having enough faith and it's also psychiatry's fault for not accepting the lord.

I'm also absoluteely confident that there are gurus out there who do indeed have a couple of well worn, glibly offered excuses as to why their methods don't work. There's a tackiness to this sort of thing which is contemptible and I can well understand how you might become dismissive of teachers generally.

However (drum roll please) .... you just might possibly find that sometimes methods work and that there are teachers who can give good advice on refining the technique or....how to get it working when it doesn't initially.

There actually is (in my experience at least) a bit of sincerity floating about the world even in these dark times. I haven't encountered any of it outside of Vajrayana Buddhism but then quite honestly I haven't been looking outside of that either. This is not to suggest that Tibetan lineages have a monopoly on sincerity of course.


I've never had a good experience with spiritual teachers. On the one hand, rabbis made me follow a set of rules regulating me from head to toe, and warned me against criticising them, and on the other hand, a yoga master made me do physical excercises without explaining the "why" behind them. "Trust me, do as I say, and don't ask questions", that's what I got from all teachers. So I decided to "f**k 'em all".

That's completely understandable. I don't blame you at all. I pretty much abandoned spiritually myself for a few years after experiencing the pretentious and sickeningly fake authority of a teacher of "Holy Magicke" Crowleyan style in Sydney.

Our lives are the experiences we live and an accumulation of falsity experienced from alleged spiritual teachers is sure to jade any of us.


No teachers for me, unless it's a teacher who is ready to answer all my questions (when he knows the answer himself, of course; I don't despise lack of knowledge, I despise the hiding of knowledge).

The hiding of knowledge annoys me but the hiding of lack of knowledge infuriates me. I have met a few Lamas who admit readily to a lack of knowledge on certain things and they were always happy to refer me to someone who could answer my question or clarify a point.

What if I don't accept rebirth? OK, scratch rebirth, you say it's unnecessary for Buddhism. What if I don't accept the doctrine that desire leads to suffering? The Buddhist system states quite dogmatically, as absolute truth, that desire leads to suffering. I dispute that. So I can't, by definition, study under a Buddhist teacher.

Personally I do believe that if there is no transmigration, then Buddhism is at best a system of therapy or at worst, a well-intentioned mistake. If I didn't believe in transmigration I wouldn't bother studying or practicing.

Mind you I do have doubts myself occassionally.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to study Buddhism and do the practices not with an attitude of thinking that you know anything for a fact but rather with an openness to the possibility of transmigration, four noble truths etc.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by andy_d
It would seem that the "guru" is outnumbered, even when he's alone with a student :D

:D :notworthy :)

[premjan]

Guru (also Brihaspati) is the Sanskrit word for the planet Jupiter, which is the heaviest of the planets.

The idea of a Guru is as a source of wisdom, not a source of authority. You take what you can, pay your dues and move on.

The days of the week are associated with planets: Jupiter's is Thursday (Guruvar) in India.

[triplew00t]

I still think you'd like Zen, HD. Check out my post on the latest page of "does reincarnation make sense" for my take on Zen ideas. Or, if you havent, check out Brad Warner's page. He is a very.. erm.. atypical Zen master. He likes punk music and is a SFX and graphics guy in the Japanese movie industry. He says people who believe in reincarnation are "full of shit". I've been keeping a decent correspondance with him lately, and his brand of Zen is exactly what I have been looking for. But mind you, Zen is about experience, not books, so it does very little good to say "study zen". If zen wants you, zen gets you ;) .

Eat, drink and be merry, Nero