Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
monster

Who can teach whom about what?

Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

This topic didn't rise just because of this forum (just partly :D ) and not just because of other forums, where are "hot" debates about religion and buddhism as well. It tries to be a general debate about ethical justness to teach somebody in case you are not qualified enough. Because teaching is also great responsibility ...

 

1. To my opinion - if you are closer to the "source" of any kind, then you have much clearer information that you can interfere to others. I will give you example (from my field, because I'm not a buddhist): If I read a book, where some words from C.G. Jung are mensioned and this words the author of that book took from other book, where partly some words of Jung were cited ... this is hardly the words Jung really said. :wink: If I would go to some seminar and listen to somebody for two hours about psychotherapy, am I qualified to teach others about this issue? Of course not! And yes, if my teacher is qualified a psychoterapist and gave me lectures and approves my knowledge of the topic, than maybe I can teach this topic ...

 

2. I have to admit that I become a little restless, when somebody is using vocabulary from my profession, but it is clear, that he or she doesn''t know the true meaning. In discussions of any kind I can read "depression", "neurosis", "ego" etc. but the writer maybe fill it fancy to use word "neurosis" instead of "simptomps" or anything else ... Of course this puts some fog on the issue and everything becomes unclear.

 

Slovenian saying is: Le ?evlje sodi naj kopitar (cca. Only the the shoemaker can judge the shoes)

 

What do you say? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek!

 

In discussions of any kind I can read "depression", "neurosis", "ego" etc. but the writer maybe fill it fancy to use word "neurosis" instead of "simptomps" or anything else ... Of course this puts some fog on the issue and everything becomes unclear.

As Buddhism can be defined - among other - as a mind science, it is clear, that some interference of Western psychology and Buddhism is inevitable. Of course words like ego etc. don't cover completely the same notion, but we need words to talk about mind and mental factors, and psychology doesn’t have a monopoly over vocabulary. In fact, as long as the quoted words are used in a common language, it is hard to expect people to use them in a strictly defined language of experts. :?

Talking about clarity, to my opinion Buddhist definitions of its terms are elaborate enough to be completely clear. And there are teachers to be asked about more subtle meanings. Which makes, to my knowledge, an incomparably more conspicuous and unified picture of mind then all the schools of western psychology together, which do not necessary share even the basic definitions. But you know this topic better. :wink:

 

Best regards,

Chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your post :)

 

Of course there can be no monopoly over some words - because in that the final monopoly will have the linguists :wink:

 

But you all can imagine, that if you write about "atomic physics" it is good that you know the terms. Ego is not a construct so hard to understand and it is part of common knowledge. But I can see that people are very keen to use "depression" or "neurosis" for something which have no sense in clinical terms :? This makes confusion!

 

If I have a word "strawberry" for something and you have a word "strawberry" for somethnig else and you are a botanic, it's maybe reasonable to believe your definition. Yes?

 

In final step ...you can look in the books to see what are the definitions of professional terms. :wink:

 

It is quite common that people understands something very differently as it is ... that's why teacher have to have very clear conception of his issue 8)

 

Like dr. ?rni? in tv broadcast Sveto in svet said: 25% of Europeans believe in reincarnation, but differently as it is in teachings :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course there can be no monopoly over some words - because in that the final monopoly will have the linguists  :wink:

And even! Linguist know a word often in a specific context, not in all. Therefore, a word can be used in Buddhist context, and not hold the same meaning there as in the common context, known by the linguist! ;)

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

First, we should consider that just talking about Dharma to some close friends isn't really "teaching". But, if that person adverstise to the public and introduce herself as a Teacher then... for someone to teach, in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, he should have received the permission from his Teacher.

Now, of course, if that person follows a monk or Geshe pretending to be teacher but not qualified for this, than the permission to teach from him is non-valid.

 

Opposed to the usually accepted basis, the title of Geshe doesn't automatically qualifies someone as a Teacher in the West. To know doesn't mean to be able to teach this knowledge anywhere to anyone.

The well known Lama Yeshe was not a Geshe, but an incredible Teacher and Lama!

 

Then, a good teacher doesn't qualify to be a "Lama". To be a Guide, in the spiritual sense of course, requieres much more than knowledge of the Text!

 

So, spiritual seekers and already Buddhist followers shall not let themselves to be fooled, but be careful and aware of the qualification requiered to be a qualified Lama, before to give trust and faith.

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course there can be no monopoly over some words - because in that the final monopoly will have the linguists  :wink:

And even! Linguist know a word often in a specific context, not in all. Therefore, a word can be used in Buddhist context, and not hold the same meaning there as in the common context, known by the linguist! ;)

 

Thank you.

I go along with you with the words like "ego" ...

 

The words in vocabulary or their interpretation by the linguist is often not quite the same as in professional terms :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I go along with you with the words like "ego" ...

This is a word we can easilly refer to, even though, of course, it can cover many definitions.

 

I tend to let aside all the other terms (as neurosis, schizophrenia, super-Ego, ...) because I've noticed it often doesn't correspond to anything I could define with Buddhism.

 

I tend also to think that such "pathologies" doesn't really exist elsewhere than in the definitions! ;) Like "depression"... All we do not really understand, and all what conventional therapeuts can't cure, they through it in "generic" pathologies, and try to treat it with various drugs...

With the definitions of the mind and fifty-one mental factors, I have all I need to understand a mind and its functions! :))

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jep, very close to what I tend to say ...

 

They do mostly exist just in definitions :wink: or we can talk about different simptoms ...BUT, then it's much greater mistake to talk about something somebody doesn't know very well and what finally exist just in theoretical books 8)

 

If man sees somebody with clinical "depression" would not just easily wipe around with this term just becasue it is fancy :wink:

 

p.s. I have to apologize myself, because general debate from my side is not so strickly buddhist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello!

 

2. I have to admit that I become a little restless, when somebody is using vocabulary from my profession, but it is clear, that he or she doesn''t know the true meaning. In discussions of any kind I can read "depression", "neurosis", "ego" etc. but the writer maybe fill it fancy to use word "neurosis" instead of "simptomps" or anything else ... Of course this puts some fog on the issue and everything becomes unclear.

 

Hello Monster, ;-)

 

the question that comes to my mind is what do you mean by "true meaning"?

 

As other people have said, Buddhism uses a lot of words differently, so for example words that you mention above have very different definitions in Buddhism as they do in psychology. Especially the word ego seems to have a very different take here. But to be able to be clearer, would you be so kind and provide us with the definitions that your profession uses and perhaps then we can see what the differences are?

 

When teachers teach here in the West, they pick up on the local vocabulary, something that people can relate with. Chogyam Trungpa especially did this a lot, and in many people's opinions was quite a master at it, and it is so present in the teachings of Shambhala community that for me it is totally natural to speak in this way, perhaps forgetting that the meaning is not clear at all to people outside! Or perhaps especially for people who are used to using this words in a different context.

 

But then also words like compassion and love have very different meaning in Buddhism !

 

Regards,

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello Robert,

 

It seems that you jump on the word "ego" - it is explained above that the definitions of ego are different.

 

By true meaning (as far as I speak about psychological phenomenea) is not a vocabulary definition ;) but professional definitions:

 

depression - is not a state of dullness or low spirit or melancholy. Depression is a mental illness with clear picture: very deep sadness that occupies whole psyche of a person and have influence on his/her vital function. Klient does not eat properly and have sleeping disorders, his intellectual potential becomes suddenly lower and verbal expression simple and short. His psyche can be occupied with suicidal thoughts and "black" scenarios. In final stage we can observe catatonia.

 

So, if somebody is just temporary sad he can't say that he is in a state of depression :?

 

And, as Rinpoche wrote, some terms seems to be just "on paper" :D

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that you jump on the word "ego" - it is explained above that the definitions of ego are different.

Hi,

 

I would still be interested in a definition of ego from your point of view, it would help me clearly distinguish between buddhist and psychological definitions. Same with neurosis.

 

Thank you for clarification on depression.

 

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... oh yes, just one comment to add ...

 

I don't know much about buddhism or teachers and who did use one aproach and who other ... What I do know, is that it's responsability of those who teach that they know their issue. And in the case they don't know the answer to the specific question say: "I don't know, I will try to look for ..." and they not (in the function, yes, of their ego) try to imaginary invent something to get approval from the listeners :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem Robert,

 

ego - freudian concept of "guardian" or "tampon zone" between id and superego. Id is motivated by libido and superego is a result of education, culture, sex etc ... People with strong ego are keen to repress motives from id and superego. Ego tries to make as much compromises as possible to avoid motives from id and superego to became present. Flexible ego is (in psychology) necessary for healthy and "normal" life in society. Example: if your id dictates you to slap everybody you disagree and your ego is not functional, you willl really slap everybody ;)

 

neurosis - also freudian concept, in the time of S. Freud mostly asociated to hysteria, now to some very specific sindroms (depresive neurosis, phobic neurosis, kompulsive neurosis, manic neurosis, ...). It is different from psyhosis (like schizophrenia or bipolar psyhosis) , because klients with neurosis in their everyday life function well or welll to some point ... neurosis is also clinical diagnosis and it means that klient has all or most of the symptoms of specific symptom ;). Example: if you have one phobia (against snakes) then you have phobia, if your snake-phobia is so strong that in some part blokades your mental aparatus and gives you side-effects: anxiety, mental rotation just around snakes, lack of concentration ... then this is phobic neurosis. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know much about buddhism or teachers and who did use one aproach and who other ... What I do know, is that it's responsability of those who teach that they know their issue. And in the case they don't know the answer to the specific question say: "I don't know, I will try to look for ..." and they not (in the function, yes, of their ego) try to imaginary invent something to get approval from the listeners :wink:

hmm, sure. But since your posts were about things being said in this forum, can you clarify?

Who is saying something that you think does not their issue? What specific question? Or is it more a hyphotethical situation?

It's easier to answer if things are put forward clearly and without pretense. No need to be politicaly correct...

 

robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I can clarify very easily ...

 

Depression was mentioned several times in the past (excuse me, I can't find posts) without clear understanding (to my opinion) ...

 

Neurosis you Robert mentioned twice in the post in the other topic ...

 

One's awareness and concentration get sharpened immensely and the mind seems to be able to relax more. That is if this doesn't play in the neurosis of trying to be perfect (as it did with me) and then you're really in for it - you can torture yourself immensely with them as well, and ego is quite capable of subverting them for feeding itself as it is with anything else. It took me quite a while to catch on to what I was doing.

If you are speaking of the "neurosis of trying to be perfect" is this completly unclear to my western ears :D ...

#1 - I thought you are speaking of some kind of compulsive neurosis (perfectionism) which is so far unknown ...

#2 - I have a feeling (correct me if I'm wrong) that this "neurosis to be perfect" is very common phenomenae so maybe you are talking about of a symptom of perfectionism ?? ...

#3 - I spot that you are reporting about your expiriences. So, maybe you are sharing with as your clinical diagnosis, which is a very brave thing to do or you see by youself a "neurosis" within yourself? Hm, I think this is a small exaggeration of your simptoms ... Well, anyhow, the use of "neurosis" was unclear for me ... ;)

 

On some other part of the same post ...

 

... In fact it is quite humiliating and humbling - your neuroses is being constantly torn apart. Which, I'm beginning to see, is really what true compassion is about. but still, it doesn't make it any easier.

Hm, hm. I read some reports about eastern gurus, who know the word "neurosis" which was some decades ago very popular among psychoterapists (not any more ...) and this gurus gave the diagnosis of neurosis to every western klient came along :D "You all Westerners have neurosis!" ... Of course this is non-sense! I'm not telling this is the same issue here, but I'm confused!

#1: maybe you are talking about your personal neurosis; or

#2 you are speaking as the neurosis exists per se in everybody and it is torn apart! ... to my opinion, neurosis can't be torn apart, maybe some other psychological elements (complexes, blocades, ...) because as I said neurosis is a SINDROM (few simptoms together) ...maybe you can say your "pride torn apart", even your ego :)

 

p.s. and luckily not everybody have a neurosis ;)

 

Hope that this post will clarify something :)

 

All the very best

 

monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are speaking of the "neurosis of trying to be perfect" is this completly unclear to my western ears :D ...

#1 - I thought you are speaking of some kind of compulsive neurosis (perfectionism) which is so far unknown ...

#2 - I have a feeling (correct me if I'm wrong) that this "neurosis to be perfect" is very common phenomenae so maybe you are talking about of a symptom of perfectionism ?? ...

#3 - I spot that you are reporting about your expiriences. So, maybe you are sharing with as your clinical diagnosis, which is a very brave thing to do or you see by youself a "neurosis" within yourself? Hm, I think this is a small exaggeration of your simptoms ... Well, anyhow, the use of "neurosis" was unclear for me ... ;)

 

Thank you for your clarifications and the definitions, they have been very helpful. The term neurosis is used quite differently in at least our community, I cannot really say for others. The way Trungpa Rinpoche used it was basically refering to anything that is opposite from your true awakened nature, any actions, or thought, or speech, that covers over your basic goodness. So, it encompasses a lot! :-)

So, from that point of view, yes, we're all neurotic because we're all unenlightened.

But then sometimes we also talk about "attacks of neurosis", which probably makes your hair stand up! ;-)

I am too tired at this point, but perhaps I can look up some references in the texts, and perhaps I can even find a definition.

 

Thank you for bringing this up though, it shows how it is good to be careful and clear about the words one is using. For some time now, I was wanting to create an online buddhist dictionary, where we could all contribute and slowly find good translations and explanations for the words we are using in this context. Perhaps this will give me a boost to actually do it soon!

 

Regards,

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no problem Robert :wink:

 

What you wrote is completely new for me :o ... and I have to say strange. If the state of an unawakened mind is neurotic ... hm, hm :D the term comes from "neuroticism" and "neurologists" are very close ... it have to do something with the "nerves" and with na old understanding of psychological problems. They were "neurotic diseases" ...

 

in slovenian we have "živ?ne bolezni" which is at the moment unsuitable term ... illnesses of the nerves (this is what neurologists explore) are something different again from the psychological illnesses :)

 

I can fully understand your point (at least I think so ...) why using this word, but I can see that you now understand why my hair us up! :roll: :D:D

 

All the best

 

monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to add few more thoughts ...

 

If somebody is using some words out of there (yes again) true meaning, then this is not correct to my opinion. More that I'm thinking about neurosis as a term of unawakened mind, more I dislike this. Neurosis is a pathological term, so everybody who is not awakened is ill in some way? Hm, hm ... perhaps my mind is not awakened (yeah, sure is not :D:D ) but because of this fact my mind is not ill or what?

 

Generally speaking, every confusion with words, explanations etc, is foggy. Example: if I would have some question about karma, I would go and ask Rinpoche, because I find him very qualified for this issue. I would not ask people on the street or somebody who happened to read book or two about karma ... it is better to go closer to the source, instead to listen to some interpretations of the interpretations of the ...

 

And yes, my conclusion of the origin of the word neurosis to the language of the eastern gurus is maybe correct. In 1960's and 1970's Westerners went to India on the flow of the Flower power movement and psychoanalysis (freudian type) was popular again. Woody Allen did it, Beatles did it, Mia Farrow did it ... and yes, gurus just borrowed the word to explain mental illness of the west ego ;)

 

Maybe it seems that I'm picky, but I find this important. If something is round, then is round, if it is square it is square. Full stop.

 

All the best

 

monster (with not awakened mind, but without known clinical neurosis) :D 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, one more ...

 

Robert:

.. The sangha is the community of people who have the perfect right to cut through your trips and feed you with wisdom, as well as the perfect right to demonstrate their own neurosis (sorry Monster! ) and be seen through by you. " (from Heart of the Buddha, chapter on Refuge)

 

:D well, this, you have to excuse me, complete non-sense. Maybe I don't understand the deeper meaning of this quote, but ... :?

 

I would like other forum members to contribute their opinions ... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, everybody.

I am new here, so perhaps I am not completely aware do you translate topics from french to english and viceversa. But I suppose that it isn´t the case, as there has been an interessant topic in french, buddishm/psyhology. According to my oppinion it would be really very helpful to have the complete debate translated also to english.

Thank you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,

so everybody who is not awakened is ill in some way?

Well, I think, yes! :lol: By Illness, named ignorance!

I've heard about one western monk, who decided to become a psychotherapist because this activity is one of the forms how to help people. But psychoanalysis or another psychological method per se can't really treat people from this deep illness named ignorance, which is the source of all illnesses like neurosis, psychosis, phobias and also calm selfish life 8)

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, he/she didn't. and it was not a quote (as you see, there was no proper quotation marks)

 

It was just a reminder, that remark "psychoanalysis can't really treat ..." is implication that "never" can treat ... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was just a reminder, that remark "psychoanalysis can't really treat ..." is implication that "never" can treat ... :wink:

Do you have 1 example of psychoanalyst who brought someone to Enlightenment? :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...