Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 58-minute seminar, Ilia S. Durovic explores the relationship between spiritual teacher and student, a cornerstone of Tibetan Buddhist practice. He begins with the classical criteria for a qualified teacher—ethics, concentration, wisdom, and compassion—drawn from Je Tsongkhapa and other lineage authorities, then considers how Western practitioners might assess teachers given our different circumstances. Durovic outlines five practical empirical criteria widely used in the Tibetan exile community: alignment with the Dalai Lama, membership in one’s root guru’s lineage, recognition by authentic tradition leaders, freedom from rumor, and advanced age and experience. The second half addresses resistance in the student-teacher relationship—inauthentic fantasized relations, refusal to understand, polling multiple teachers, procrastination, and avoidance—and explains how genuine Guru Yoga requires commitment and vulnerability rather than projection onto a distant ideal. He concludes with discussion of whether one’s childhood wounds with parents affect spiritual practice, the role of conviction in the teacher’s enlightened status, and how Western Buddhists must move beyond suspension of disbelief to authentic commitment. Suitable for practitioners engaged with Tibetan Buddhist teachers or contemplating taking one.
File metadata (for organising)
File: The Idealized Father2 – KR.mp3
UUID: 5bec1160-a671-493c-a950-18466c3921b3
Teacher: Ilia S. Durovic
Collection: Ilia Seminars
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~7,383
But if not some degree of compassion, has thorough knowledge of reality, we commented on this already, skill in instructing disciples may or may not be present. It is a minor criterion, and has abandoned dispiritedness. Regarding the training in ethics, the first point, Jyotongapas says, I think this is very much a core theme in the Gelug tradition, which His Holiness had developed. It is said that those who have not disciplined themselves have no basis for disciplining others. So, this has to be the foundation.
Without ethics, from the teacher’s standpoint, the core qualification is not present. And then, as Geshe Potawa said of the 10 qualities, the three first qualities are capital, in other words, a training in morality, in other words, ethics, concentration, and wisdom. In addition, for Geshe Potowa, the loving concern of the teacher is of great importance. If the teacher has no compassion for the student, he will not teach. In Je Tsongkhapa, as a sign of the very, decadent times, he had reached in which was written in 1402, said that if the teacher has one and one-eighth qualities, one and one-eighth of the 10 qualities, in other words, 1.25 qualities, that is probably enough.
And to mix the hard to get and the easy to get, in other words, what is meant by this is that you will not get a teacher with 10 qualities. Very few of us will be able to relate to a teacher with the three qualities. If a teacher has one of the major qualities, one of the three first qualities, perfectly pure ethics, powerful training and concentration, or realization of wisdom. And on top of that, a little bit extra from some of the other qualities, that is enough in the age we live in. So these have to be the criterion we adopt to select the teacher.
And His Holiness the Dalai Lama has fleshed this out in many teachings, and I would like to quote directly from him, since His Holiness is really, as Garchen Rinpoche said to me once, the teacher of wisdom to the world. So we should rely on what he puts in his teachings, especially in sensitive matters, like this. So His Holiness has said that first, as I mentioned to you, the teacher should be ordained. Secondly, that there is an uncommon advantage of the Gelug tradition. Now, this is not a sectarian statement so much as a way of under under underlining the fact first that the Gelug tradition was a dominant tradition in Tibet, and that there was a reason for this.
The reason for this was that the situation when Je Tsongkhapa came had greatly decayed. And the reformation of the teaching which Je Tsongkhapa initiated actually benefited all four traditions. It is dependent on the reformation of the teachings which Je Tsongkhapa initiated. That pure Vinaya was reintroduced in Tibet. Vinaya or monastic discipline is the criterion for the existence or the non existence of the Buddha’s teachings in a country.
Where there are fully ordained, four fully ordained monks, the Buddha’s teachings are said to be present. Where there are not four fully ordained monks, but 5,000,000 unordained people who are Buddhists, the Buddhist teachings are not present. It’s a very powerful statement. And because Je Tsongkhapa reformed monasticism, purified monasticism, created a pure tradition, this purity spread to the other traditions which benefited from it as well. And His Holiness has said, having to enter the first path, the path of accumulation at the beginning is common to all the four sects of Tibetan Buddhism.
However, because the Gelug tradition has the unique system of undertaking thorough and detailed study encompassing the entire range of the philosophy, I think it has more advantages due to providing one with more avenues of reasoning when one sits down to meditate. Especially for Westerners whose minds are more active, I would say, than that of many Asians who are better educated. It is important when doubts arise that there be avenues to counter the doubts. So there is an uncommon advantage in this respect, certainly for one’s first teacher, in having a teacher from Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition. Or at least, as the quote indicates, a teacher who has a wealth of scriptural knowledge.
Otherwise, it is very easy for the student from his own side, and the Westerners have a real proclivity for this, to become highly confused. Then, the third characteristic, or the third point His Holiness makes, is really an exception granted to Westerners is a question when the student teacher relationship actually starts, at what point does it start? As a traditional position, is that when you have received one verse of scripture, one verse of Dharma, from the spiritual teacher, at that point, you become his student in the full sense of the term. With the full level of commitments which were explained. So the very first time you attend a teaching and you understand one verse of scripture, you attend of your own free choice, you receive one verse of scripture, have taken on the teacher as your spiritual teacher.
This is the traditional position which is shared by all the Buddhist schools. And this position is actually explicated in a famous quote by the author of the commentary on black Yamaari, Ratnakar Ashanti, which says, someone who hears even a single verse and does not conceive its speaker to be his or her guru will be reborn 100 times as a dog and then will take rebirth in a bad caste. This is a traditional Indian criteria. Obviously, this would put Westerners in an impossible situation since there is no way of examining the teacher at all, except entering the teacher’s name on the Internet and saying what other Westerners who don’t have a clue say about him, which is I think what most of us seem to be doing. So His Holiness has qualified this for Westerners.
It’s what’s called Miksel in Tibetan. An exception is specific to Westerners. It doesn’t apply to Tibetans. Tibetans consider that when you go to a teaching, the moment you have sat down on your own free choice and received one verse of scripture, you are the student of that teacher. If you tell them the contrary, they are very shocked.
But His Holiness has said, I normally advise Westerners that if one takes initiation from someone, there is no choice but to regard that person as a teacher. In other cases, if one has not had the opportunity to examine the teacher and cannot do so without attending teachings, excluding Tantric teachings or general teachings such as introductions to Buddhism from that teacher, as an exception, these can be listened to in the same way as a lecture. Then, when one thinks, one can accept him as a teacher, rely on him, and observe the commitments. One should do so. This is an exception for Westerners which is really quantified.
This for Westerners, number one, who do not have the opportunity to examine the teacher, number two, who cannot do so without taking teachings, number three. And this does not apply to tantric teachings. You can’t come to a tantric commentary out of curiosity to get a sense of what’s happening. Know? Nor does this apply to initiations.
Then they can come, and because of the difficulty Westerners have in examining teachers, attend and see whether or not they can accept the teacher, that is how they visualize him, as a spiritual teacher or not. So this decision must be made in one’s mind before attending teachings. Before we do the teachings, one must say, I’m going to the teachings to check this or that teacher out. I will not enter in a relationship with him at present. If one goes to the teachings with the idea that one is going to take him as a teacher, and then one changes one’s mind, the abandonment of the spiritual teacher has occurred.
So one has to be very clear with oneself in these matters. Now, there are some empirical criteria in use in the Tibetan community I would like to cover with you. These are criteria I have seen at work over the years with my Tibetan friends, mainly Sangha. They’re not normative criteria in the sense that you can teach take teachers who don’t fit these criteria, but generally speaking, now that I think you understand a bit better the importance of this relation, I would put it to you that should put all the chances on your side. The first of these criteria, which is by far the most important, is to take a teacher who is in full communion with the current Dalai Lama.
In full communion means that this is a teacher who is close to His Holiness, that’s how the Tibetans put it, who is seen regularly at His Holiness’s teachings, who meets His Holiness privately in audiences. His Holiness seems happy when you see the pictures of His Holiness with that teacher. It’s only if the teacher looks happy and His Holiness looks grim, then you know there’s a problem. You know? This is someone who does not criticize His Holiness publicly or privately.
This is something perhaps for all of us. This is the most important criterion. Because we are very fortunate that presently we have His Holiness. It’s a bit like the gold standard, you know? So, His Holiness has means of checking, which we do not even begin to approach.
If His Holiness is satisfied with the behavior of a teacher, and we can be sure of that, There’s no worry to have. That’s the first empirical criterion. The second criterion is a teacher who is a member of the lineage of one’s own root guru. Once you enter into the tradition, you will have a teacher who will be your main teacher. We call him your root guru.
Tibetans are very, very loath to take teachers out of the lineage of their root guru. For it says all of my teachers in the Gelug tradition are all within one lineage, within generations one after the other. The reason for this is that there is very pure Samaya between the members of one lineage, and there is again much less of a risk of cognitive discrepancy. Yes. Yes.
Yes. For instance, I have teachers of three consecutive generations. Who passed on was my teacher. Who is his student, is my teacher. Is student, is my teacher.
You know? So then if you practice in a lineage like that, it enables great purity of the practice, purity of the Samaya. This is an empirical criterion, again, it’s not mentioned in writing anywhere. The third criterion which is important is a teacher who is acknowledged by leading representatives of his own tradition as opposed for instance to the heads of organizations. This has become a very major issue in the West.
Again, because this is a very powerful relationship. You should not enter into this relationship lightly. We don’t have the means to check whether a teacher fulfills the 10 criteria of the Mahāyāna Sutralamkara, or even the three criteria, five or three criteria of Geshe Potowa. Or even the one and one-eighth criteria of Je Tsongkhapa. So we have to rely on the judgment of others who are qualified.
Those who are qualified are the members, the elders, the authentic members of that teacher’s tradition. In our tradition, the Gelug tradition, it’s His Holiness. It’s quite straightforward. If you practice in other traditions, this should be a teacher, let’s say, in the Sakya tradition, who is acknowledged by His Holiness Sakya Trizin. Or who is in one of the other traditions acknowledged by a head of that tradition who is universally respected.
If you cannot get that certainty, you are better off deferring the relationship. Then number four, a teacher about whom there are no rumors in the Tibetan community in exile. This for you is very difficult to to do. It was something I did systematically in India. I would always inquire, is there talk?
You know? If there are rumors, any rumors, then the relationship should not be entered into. Rumors mean, yes, you know, he teaches a lot but he didn’t study as much as they say he did. That sort of thing. You know?
That’s enough. The fifth criterion is you should adopt a teacher who is older. Now this is a very subjective criterion, but age is generally speaking a criterion of stability. Tibetans do not take young teachers. Very, very few Tibetans will take a teacher under the age of 30.
I have never taken myself a teacher under the age of 60. I would say the turning point is maybe 45 or 50. There’s a very fine, teacher, a philosophy friend of mine. I spoke with Khensur Rinpoche about taking him as a teacher or not. And Rinpoche asked me directly, he said, what do you feel?
I said, he’s too young. And he was 48 at the period. And Rinpoche was very happy. Because once a relationship is entered into, it’s an irreversible relationship. Oh, you want to put the maximum advance on your side.
And then finally, obviously, a teacher who has who is ordained, who has studied, and who has meditated. This is taken for granted in the Tibetan tradition. So these are empirical criteria. But these are criteria if you start working and living in the Tibetan community in India, you you will see that these are really standard criteria which are used. And then the issue I would like to address now is is the most difficult one.
The topic is not difficult, but the emotions it awakens are difficult. It’s the issue of resistance. Resistance to structuration. There is no resistance in an inauthentic relation with a spiritual teacher, which is why inauthentic relations with a spiritual teacher are a lot of fun. It’s a lot of fun, it’s very easy to have a spiritual teacher who’s an object of fantasy whom we never meet and whom we never ask for advice from.
Because it is totally non binding. As Kalu Rinpoche said to some of his students once, he was teaching Guru Yoga, he said, your practice of Guru Yoga is not a practice you should engage with with me, whom you never meet, because he was such an extraordinary practitioner. It is with your elder of your house, with the older monk of your house, that the practice is difficult. Because it’s very easy for, for instance, I know so many westerners who say His Holiness is my teacher’s excellent. But if you ask them then how often do you meet with His Holiness?
Never. Okay. Who’s guiding you? I just do what I want. Is more or less the gist of their answer.
Then you say, well, do you have a good geshe in the town you live in? A good monk? A good Yes, but. This is a refusal to enter into an authentic relation. So in inauthentic relations with the spiritual teacher, there is no resistance because there is no relation.
It’s exactly the situation of the little child in the pram facing away from the mother. The mother is pushing the pram, child is in front, there is a simile of a relation because they’re related by the pram. But they are not looking at each other. Resistance arises when there is a relation. Hence, the most subtle way or the most subtle form of resistance is the inauthentic relation, the fantasized relation.
The fantasized relation is of no spiritual benefit. Because the spiritual teacher cannot perform the function which we described in the first, which is to teach, to address the delusions of the disciple, to help the disciple. Because the disciple from his side has turned his back to the teacher, like the child in the pram. So resistance arises when the child faces the mother, and instead of imitating the mother and trying to become like the mother, which is a process of Guru Yoga, chooses to be a naughty child who does exactly the opposite of what the mother wants. And then, what are the grounds?
Yes, I will skip this. There is a section I was gonna cover with you. Some of you may be interested to look into this by yourselves. There’s a German Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, who did some very interesting work on the relation with the other, authentic and inauthentic relations, and specifically what he calls the I-You versus the I-It relation, the Ich-Du versus the Ich-Es relation. So the relation we want with a spiritual teacher is an I you relation, a relation with a person.
And not an I it relation, a relation with an object, fantasy, with a fantasy. In an I you relation, there is communication, there is contact, there is change, in other words. So the patterns of the relation which we are trying to avoid, the Ich-Es relation, the fantasized relation, are first grounds for resistance are two. The two I have seen the most often is that the student actually has already decided what he is going to do. The role of the teacher is to give confirmation to that decision, to rubber stamp the student’s decision.
This is very common. This is very common, the teacher’s senses. Then, in this type of inauthentic relation, the student may typically request a meeting with the spiritual teacher and ask either ask leading questions or actually tell the teacher what he has already decided to do. Then, from the teacher’s standpoint, there is nothing left to say. There has been no consultation.
There has been, from the student side, no openness to any input from the teacher. Now, the purview of the teacher’s input is all the students activities related to training, to Dharma. Any Dharma activity you engage in without consulting your teacher is a fault. Period. Taking on new teachers without consulting your teacher is a major fault.
Attending teachings without consulting your teacher is a fault. Because you have chosen him as a guide in that field. On the other hand, whether your savings are in stocks or in bonds, is not something which is of the purview of the teacher. You can decide by yourself and he will be very happy too. It tends to be exactly the opposite.
In Singapore, the students always ring up concerning the stock market. But they don’t seem to come a lot about questions regarding practice. And the second ground for resistance is when the student from his side does not want to have to decide. And then the issue is just left in suspension. What is interesting, however, and I think we will all recognize them within ourselves, are the strategies of resistance.
Now, the most extreme strategy of resistance is the breach of the relationship, abandoning the teacher. We actually resist to such a degree that we decide from our own side to cease seeing the teacher as an ideal. And there are two forms of such breaches. There is direct unjustified refusal. The teacher excuse me.
The teacher gives advice at the request of the student, and the student says no. This is rare in my experience. It’s very scary. It’s very difficult to retrieve a teacher student relationship from that situation. The student, if they want to do so from their side, has to do a lot of purification.
Because it’s been a complete block of revelation which has always been initiated at the initiative of the student. Then the second type of breach of the relationship, which is quite a bit more common, is changing one’s mind. This one sees a lot of when decisions have been made under the power of emotion. And decisions are made under the power of emotion when the relation to the teacher is an emotional relation. It’s not a relation which is rooted in seeing the teacher as a manifestation of the omniscient mind.
Then the student is carried away, makes a decision, and then regrets the decision and changes his mind. And says to the teacher, I’ve changed my mind. And this is a breach of the relationship, qualified by the circumstances. It’s not as extreme as a direct refusal. But both of these direct refusal and changing one’s mind frequently lead to abandoning the teacher.
In other words, to abandoning, as we were saying, the basis, the path, the result. Then, among the strategies of resistance, have inauthentic relationship or damaged relationship. This is very common. It’s been my dubious privilege as a translator to see these time and over again when I translate privately for my teachers. The first one which is extremely common is refusal to understand.
The student requests an audience with the teacher, asks a question, just straightforward question. The teacher gives an extremely straightforward answer, and the student doesn’t understand the extremely straightforward answer. The one goes through the rigmarole again. One retranslates with a very, simple clear answer on the teacher, and the student still doesn’t understand. Suddenly, student’s IQ has dropped by 50 points for the duration of the audience.
Then when one goes out, the teacher student says, I don’t understand what he said. And you repeat again what the teacher said. Once again, the student refuses to understand. This is not an issue of understanding. It is an issue of a damaged relation with the teacher.
In every single case when one sees these strategies of resistance, the pattern is that the student is not in a state of openness towards the advice of the teacher. The student goes in for corroboration or vindication of choices they have already taken or on the point of taking. And then, strategies are set up to deal with whatever the teacher says. So, the second strategy of resistance is systematic misunderstanding. This is quite related to the first.
Misunderstanding. The third which I have seen quite commonly is a more elegant strategy of resistance. I call it polling one’s teachers. It’s a majority vote approach. When you have half a dozen teacher teachers, and you’re not really quite sure you want to do something, you ask half a dozen for say A to say B, then you can choose between A and B.
It’s extremely convenient. But it’s actually a strategy of resistance. The authentic relation with the spiritual teacher entails relating mainly to one teacher, seeing all teachers as emanations of each other and asking one teacher for advice and acting on that advice. To polling one’s teachers is a sign that from the student’s side, the authentic relation with the teacher is not really there. The fourth strategy of resistance is procrastination, which is also very common.
The teacher has said that I should do this and I will do this after I have finished going on vacation, the new job, raising the children, towards the end of this life, preferably in the next life. These are strategies of procrastination. It is a strategy of resistance. Excuses, unless they are legitimate, there are situations where it is simply impossible for the student to do things, but it is rarely the case. Excuses are a strategy of procrastination, and then a strategy of resistance.
And then the last strategy of resistance, which one does see unfortunately rather often, is avoiding the teacher. In other words, the student has this inauthentic fantasized relationship, but actually never meets with the teacher for private advice even though the teacher from his side is available. Because the student is afraid the teacher is going to tell them to do something they don’t want to do. They might tell them to get ordained. It’s a big fear with older students who are single that the teacher is going to suddenly push them in a monastery.
Well, teachers don’t place a burden on the shoulders of students they cannot bear. Or when the student is leading a lifestyle he knows is inappropriate, avoids, he or she avoids the teacher so as not to be told to change lifestyles. These are strategies of resistance. I think most most of us have engaged in one or several of these strategies at some point in our relation to our teachers. The key is to become aware of them.
Once one is aware of them, one can check one’s own mind, one’s own mind. And then say, well, if I am going to engage in strategies of resistance, if I claim to be in an authentic relation, but actually I’m in an inauthentic relationship, why bother being in a relationship at all? Nobody is obliged to relate to a spiritual teacher. If we’re going to do so, we should do so in a meaningful way. So I think from my standpoint, I have covered what I wanted to cover with you today.
And, we have another ten minutes. So I’m at your disposal for any questions you might have. The first one, if you have a very difficult relationship with your parent as a young child, Looking for your daddy is okay. Milarepa was looking for his daddy. He went very far.
You have to be aware that that’s what’s happening, and you have to move above that. I don’t think, difficult family relations are in any way something which prevents an authentic relation with a spiritual teacher. I think, however, that family issues may be brought into the relationship with the teacher. We have to be aware of that. A lot of things can be solved when we become aware of them.
Does that help? Yes. Whether you take Geshe-la or not as a teacher is up to yourself since you have this exception from his holiness. You can attend teachings to check Geshe-la. I would personally suggest that you do so, that you listen carefully to see whether or not you are comfortable entering into that relationship with Geshe-la.
Having said that, Geshe-la has, if you’ll forgive me for the term, been pre checked by Khensur Rinpoche. So there is no need, I would say, for those who feel comfortable in entering that relationship with Geshe-la to put excessive effort. I, for myself, when I was young, took on as teachers, all the teachers invited to the center. As far as I was concerned, he he is inviting them to teach and he is personally attending the teachings, gave a stamp of approval, the greater than which I did not need. Does that help?
Okay. That’s a good question. There’s a big debate about this one. You can have many teachers. That’s that’s taken for granted.
As many as you want. The question is whether it’s more helpful to have one or several. In Lam Rim Chenmo, Geshe Sharawa is said to have taken on as a teacher anyone he met who taught Dharma. Whereas, Geshe Potowa was very, very strict in taking on teachers. It was debated which was the better system.
If you can relate correctly to all your teachers, there is no difference. The problem is relating correctly to all your teachers. You cannot have favorites. All your teachers must be seen as identical in terms of being emanations of the dharmakaya. It’s very difficult.
For that reason, Je Tsongkhapa says that it is generally preferable to have very few teachers. I think for Westerners at the beginning, one teacher. He is the safest way to go. Then, once the relationship is solid, one can progress as we saw with the empirical criteria in the Tibetan tradition with teachers within a lineage, you know. But to see all one’s teachers as emanations of the dharmakaya as interchangeable is very difficult.
When I was at Sera Je, the abbot was teaching a very beautiful but very difficult text of Je Tsongkhapas, the Golden Rosary of Eloquence. We were struggling to to understand. And he said one thing during that week, which has stuck in my mind for years. He said, just out of the blue, because of these sort of advices the teacher gives, said, he who abandons one teacher abandons all teachers.
It’s difficult. If you have gone to the teachings of every teacher who came in town without checking, And let’s say you have 50 teachers. And then the relation with one teacher really deteriorates. And you abandon that teacher, you have abandoned all 50 teachers. It’s very difficult.
Does that answer your question? Yes. Yeah. The issue is one of the actual mode of existence of the teacher versus his mode of appearance. So what I tried to do today was to show a that there are reasons which indicate an omniscient mind could exist.
That was step one. If such a mind existed, it would manifest for our benefit. That is step two. Who is and is not manifestations of that mind, we have no way of knowing. That is step three.
There is a higher level of probability that spiritual teachers, teachers who perform deeds for the benefit of others would be manifestations of that mind. But it’s just a probability. We have no access to their mental continuum. We have no way of knowing. Then from our side, we know these manifestations exist.
We don’t know who is a manifestation and who is not. But for our spiritual growth we want to relate to one such manifestation. We choose someone who becomes our spiritual teacher and visualize him as that manifestation without ever being able to know for sure whether he is or not. That is a tricky point. That is a tricky point.
And therefore, to choose someone who is going to bear these projections, the projections of our ideals, we want someone whose exterior behavior is as close to that as possible. All we have access to is the exterior behavior of being, and even that is limited. And the 10 criteria of Mahāyāna Sutralamkara are criteria which are pertaining to the exterior behavior, what we see. His ethics looks good. We don’t know his ethics.
His concentration looks good. People say it is good. We don’t know his concentration. We don’t see in his mind. He has a thoroughly pacified mind.
He has wisdom. We don’t know. We are not in his mind seeing whether he’s meditating on emptiness or not. People say, you know, he has greater qualities than the students. They say he has compassion.
Well, how do we know? He’s smiling, he’s kind, so are crooks and thieves. There is the key is there, but we from our side, in our relation to the spiritual teacher, want to put maximum number of odds on our side. So the omniscient mind is here. There are manifestations of the omniscient mind, but we don’t know which ones they are.
And then we find a spiritual teacher who, in terms of external qualities, is here. Then the distance is not too difficult to bridge. If in terms of external qualities he’s here, he may still be a manifestation of the omniscient mind. But for us, the distance becomes difficult to bridge. You see, in ancient India, for instance, where practitioners were of another level than us, Naropa’s root guru from whom we have received the Mahāmudrā lineages, the lineage of Heruka, the lineage of Hevajra was Tilopa.
Tilopa was a pimp professionally, a sesame seed grinder and a procurer for a courtesan. Naropa was able to relate to an emanation of such a debased level of manifestation because Naropa was an exceptional practitioner. We are not. And Naropa traversed a series of extraordinarily difficult tests, the 12 tests Tilopa put him through through. You know, again, we cannot practice at that level.
When Milarepa became the disciple of Marpa, Marpa was an enlightened being, a lineage holder, you know. To exterior appearances, Marpa was a greedy farmer, farming his plot of land, who beat Milarepa into a pulp, had Milarepa build towers for him, then had him tear the towers down, build them elsewhere. But Milarepa, because he was an extraordinary practitioner, was able to bridge a gap between that very coarse level of appearance of and the projected ideal. We’re not able to do that. We need teachers with a maximum of qualities because even if they were perfect, we would still think they have faults.
So then, you know. That’s why I I I’ve spoken quite a bit in this talk of projection and transference. Guru Yoga is the controlled use of projection and transference. For those of you who have tantric initiation, Guru Yoga is a quintessential practice of the generation stage. It is the core practice for the elimination of ordinary appearances.
Does that bridge a bit the two? Are there other questions? The thing of emotion. I think the key is to get that sense, that conviction, that the teacher is an enlightened being. And one of the strongest lines of reasoning towards that is that if the enlightened beings exist And we have first first have to be sure they exist.
The problem to most Western is that the if the enlightened beings exist is not established. For most Western, they don’t accept they exist. But if the enlightened beings exist with complete omniscience, not qualified omniscience, complete omniscience, then because they have the three qualities of wisdom, love, and power, Naturally, they would manifest. I mean, what sort of enlightened being will be so egotistical, he would not manifest for the benefit of other sentient beings? Then he would manifest, how in the form of a being who is of help to them.
What help can the enlightened provide being provide? He can teach. So if we’re looking for the manifestations of enlightened beings, we should be looking among teachers because teaching is the activity of enlightened beings. Not just, but mainly, you know. Then once we get that sense that the teacher See, it’s an incremental process.
First, get the sense that there are enlightened beings, and we get the sense that if they exist, they would manifest. Then we get the sense that the teacher may be an enlightened being. Then we get the sense that if enlightened beings exist in manifest we have to posit one, and if a teacher can’t be posit that as one we can’t posit one. Then we start to get this conviction that probably the teacher is an enlightened being. Then our relation starts shifting.
Then we start to see the teacher in non ordinary light. And then, whether from his side he is enlightened or not, we start receiving a much higher level of blessings. You see, ask yourselves, I mean, if you really believed I’m gonna it’s a Western audience, so you’re forgive me for speaking like this. If you believe God existed, and God was in this room and God said to you, do this, would you debate? Right?
When we speak of the Omniscient Mind, we’re speaking of God. I mean, I’m not gonna quibble now. You know? That is the level we are speaking of. We’re speaking of the manifestation of omniscience in a finite form.
Now, it’s limited by the form. Nobody is saying that a guru with a brain of 1.5 kilos, you know, is able with that brain of 1.5 kilos to cognize the sum total of all phenomena. But the mind which is there is able to do that. Then when we relate to that being, the moment that conviction is in our mind, we are different. See, when you see, Tibetans meeting with His Holiness, they are basically shaking with fear.
Literally. I mean, they are shaking. Westerners, no, they’re beaming and happy and chatting because they do not see his holiness as anything but ordinary. He’s just the nice old movie star. You know?
That’s all. But the moment one sees His Holiness as extraordinary, then the relationship changes completely. Then His Holiness’s capacity to help help us becomes extraordinary. Does that help? You have to work up to it.
The line of reasoning to follow at that point is when you’ve reached it’s hard to get to the point that probably he’s a Buddha. It’s very difficult. It’s already a lot. But you have to bridge a gap between probably he’s a Buddha and he is a Buddha. How do we do that?
We think for ourselves, probably he is a Buddha. I am a sentient being who is trying to be free of suffering, who is trying to be happy. I have established the omniscient mind exists and manifests. If it is not manifesting to help me, then what is it doing? This is the function of the omniscient mind.
Who is manifesting to help me? My own teacher. I cannot posit anyone else. If I cannot posit anyone else, then my own teacher must be enlightened, even though I myself am unable to understand this. But these lines of reasoning, you know, are very advanced because you can see that if the conviction in the existence of an omniscient mind in the full sense, a mind which knows every single phenomena in the entire cosmos at every single instant.
It’s not a qualified omniscient mind, you know, which can know what it needs to know. It’s fully omniscient. If the conviction in the existence of such a mind does not exist, then we’re not able to bring the relation to the spiritual teacher to that level. Because only such a mind can see the sum total of the causal nexuses in our past which has led to suffering in this life. And how to lead us out of suffering, you know, only such a mind can see that.
So the key, it seems to me, is establishing the existence of the omniscient mind, and that is one of the main lines of reasoning in Dharmakīrti’s Pramānavārttika. You know, for Westerners, this is very difficult. Very difficult. Good. It is.
It is. So the key in a nutshell is entering this relationship if you are convinced from your side, you can practice purely. And if you have any doubts, wait. I think that is the key. Well, you can study the teachings, you know.
Check the teacher. In India, teachers check their students and the students check their teachers for twelve years. Twelve years is a symbolic figure in India, nobody I don’t know of Western Europe who has checked his teacher for twelve years. It’s twelve days if you’re lucky. How can you do it?
You know? But the difference is that once the Indian disciple had checked the teacher and the teacher had checked the disciple for twelve years, then the relationship was a relationship which is indestructible. You all know the verse in the central prayer of Lama Chöpa. You are the guru, you are the yidam, you are the Dakini, you are the protector. From now on until I attain full enlightenment.
Be my protection. Now what are we saying here? We are saying that the spiritual teacher becomes our protection life after life after life after life. If you become the student of Khensur Rinpoche, if you become the student of His Holiness and Dalai Lama, it doesn’t stop with his life. You become the student the next life, the following life.
In the Bardo, they protect you. In the next life, they protect you. They lead you up to full enlightenment. It’s a very big decision. Twenty years seems like a terribly long time for me to check.
But I mean, you you at the same time said that for a Tibetan It’s good. So one teaching is enough. Tibetans would never go to a teaching without accepting to receive a teacher as a disciple. But what they would do is they would make a lot of preliminary background check on par with the sort of checks you would literally do for making a loan to someone. It’s literally akin to hiring a detective.
You know? That’s how I checked my teachers. I mean, when I became student of Khensur, you believe me, I I tried to see if there was anything which could prevent me from becoming a student. And one is really foolish not to do that. You know?
Then it’s up to oneself at a certain point. You know? I think for Westerners, the problem is you can only suspend disbelief for so long, you know. And I think one of the big problems we have as Western Buddhists is that one suspends disbelief, attends the teachings, goes through the motions. Others sometimes believe one is a Buddhist.
Oneself sometimes ends up believing one is a Buddhist. And one is in a state of suspension of disbelief. One is still in a state of non commitment. And then at a certain point, one realizes one is not and one walks away to the shock and bewilderment of one’s teachers and often the community. And I’ve seen this several times.
It’s always the result of a combination of lack of analysis and lack of merit. Faith alone is not sufficient as a foundation. You need a combination of analysis, faith, and experience helping each other. It is very dangerous to force the mind in a corner and keep sort of forcing it in a corner, even with a mouse, if you force it in a corner, it’ll fight. The mind has to be enticed, has to be brought out, has to be convinced.
You have to check, you know. When we have Western Buddhists who’ve been coming to the center for ages and suddenly become Muslim or, you know, you don’t see them and you learn that they’re evangelical Christians, there is a big problem. I mean, going from Buddhism to Islam, going from Buddhism to Evangelical Christianity is is a sign something is really wrong. It’s a gigantic jump. How can you go from one tradition in which it is said that there are countless past lives and you can attain yourself enlightenment to another tradition which says that you were the powerless creature of omniscient creator, and, you know, if anyone commits adultery, you stone them until they die.
I mean, how is this possible? It’s not possible. It means the person never was a Buddhist in the first place. That’s what it means. So I think for us, because we Westerners have a quite a very bad reputation over the years with the great Tibetan teachers.
I remember in the seventies, late seventies, the great teachers are ready to forgive everything to the Western students. They said the Westerners don’t know, they don’t understand, it’s new, it’s so different, you know. And then in the eighties, nineties, the children started really changing. Then the teachers said, they’re fickle, they’re unreliable, it’s impossible to satisfy them. They only come to the centers when the conditions are excellent.
If the conditions are not excellent, they don’t come. The moment you need their help, they are there to be counted upon. It’s all show and flimflam. This is something which really one hears. Many great teachers now refuse to come to the West to teach.
And many teachers who were doing meditative retreats were asked and they they said there is more benefit in my meditative retreat than going to teach such unreliable people. So this is something we as westerners, we have to have to work against. You know, the way to do it is to be honest, to be sincere, not to be hypocritical. It’s perfectly okay not to be a Buddhist. You can have a higher rebirth, many higher rebirths without being a Buddhist.
You can be a Buddhist and end up in the lower realms. There’s no problem. What is not okay is to make believe. So we have to really be authentic and sincere with our teachers. The Tibetan teachers respect this.
They don’t respect make believe. Is that good with answering your question? Good. Thank you very much.