I watched a somewhat unsettling YouTube video the other day pertaining to Zen. In the tape, a young self-styled 'punk' Zen master 'debates' a sock puppet who represents an older, well-established (and apparently quite commercialized) Zen master. The video is followed by dozens of heated comments by supporters of both masters.
Maybe you've seen it. I'm not going into all the details, nor am I going to link to it. I have no desire to spread the antagonism.
I only want to say that this is the kind of thing that reinforces my continuing desire to have no teacher at all.
One of the great disillusions I suffered as a fundamentalist Christian 40-odd years ago was the discovery that many (or most) of the people I looked to as spiritual leaders were not much more than actors. They would have been just as comfortable being siding salesmen, and probably every bit as sincere.
I read about some of the stuff that goes on in Buddhist temples and organizations, and I suspect the same truth applies there.
One of the things I like about the lecturer and philosopher Alan Watts is that he frequently prefaced his presentations with the admonition that he was not a guru and not seeking followers.
"I am not advocating zen buddhism," he once told an audience. "I am not trying to convert anyone to it. I have nothing to sell. I’m an entertainer. That is to say, in the same sense, that when you go to a concert and you listen to someone play Mozart, he has nothing to sell except the sound of the music. He doesn’t want to convert you to anything. He doesn’t want you to join an organization in favor of Mozart’s music as opposed to, say, Beethoven’s."
I am near the conclusion that anyone who wants to set himself up as a leader or authority over other people – even in a democracy like ours – ought to be automatically disqualified from doing it. The very act of seeking the position suggests the person is too much of a narcissist, egomaniac or control freak to be any good at it.
3 comments:
Well said.....
A "guru" is an asshole looking for a human being to attach himself to.
Interestingly, that's also the definition of a "disciple."
It seems to me it should be possible to want to offer, rather than teach, to aim to reach rather than ask others to follow.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to share the ways to wisdom when found, but you're right that when ego gets bound up in it things go wrong. But wasn't that what the Buddha taught?
It seems to me he also taught that we should pick the members of our sangha carefully, and that it takes time to sort out who has genuine wisdom. It's helpful to get outside, balancing opinions (the human mind too easily goes astray when left to its own devices) but no one should depend on just one outside opinion, or opinions only from their in-group. That's just common sense.
Post a Comment