Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Masters, Teachers and Intermediaries

07:59 / 28.10.02

This is a post that may also be at home The Magick.

But it was partly triggered by the thread on Zen in this forum, so it's starting here.

It was also fuelled by two books: Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor and Angels by Michel Serres.

Many of us on this Board have a suspicion of authority figures. The teacher/pupil relationship involves a lot of trust and sometimes that trust can be abused. But in order to learn we must trust other people.

I'm thinking here specifically of traditions such as Zen Buddhism that emphasize the relationship between master and pupil - where trust is absolute. I have a bit of a block with this. Now Stephen Batchelor suggests that one future possibility for Buddhism is not that of masters and pupils but a network of equals, supporting each other. Whilst this is appealingly egalitarian, I'm not sure it's enough.

So, to my question: How do people see the teacher/pupil relationship? Positive, negative, both, neither?

And on a slightly different tangent, will we always need intermediaries to the Divine (clergy, shaman, angels, texts, etc)?

I want wild speculations backed with personal experiences.

at the scarwash

18:14 / 28.10.02

I've found that I definitely do need teachers and role models to get on in my life, but that I outgrow them rapidly. Not that I'm superbrilliant or anything, just that I take from them what I need and the grow frustrated at their shortcomings. I have to sever the part of the relationship that puts us in master-pupil terms, and try to come to terms with them as equals lest I grow to resent them for not being better than me. This happened throughout high school and college, and has carried on into the friends I've made.

19:07 / 28.10.02

Camden Benares wrote a book called "Zen Without Zen Masters." It's a bit hippy-dippy in spots, but basically aimed at writing contemporary koans to, y'know, reach the modern, masterless Westerner.

Of course, it did implicitly involve accepting *him* as an authority.

I don't think you can learn something by already knowing it. You can only learn from some source that already knows.

Personally, I get around this by making "humility" something I always look for in a source. Teachers unafraid to ask questions, you know.

Tangentially: I have a memory of an Asian religions prof telling me that it wasn't unusual for a Zen master to basically shack up with female students - it was more acceptable than professors shacking up with female students in Western universities (which happened a bit at my alma mater, usually to the profs' eventual chagrin).