teachers vs diy

Check me on this.

To Vince and the other founders of Buddhist Geeks I always thought it meant people who were obsessed with Buddhism. You know, read about it all the time, thought about it, talked about it --but not necessarily on-line.

?

Right? Any obsessed person can be this kind of "Geek," There are "Starwars Geeks," "Movie Geeks," "comedy geeks," etc. No?

Or is it really about being into technology/internet/digital stuff while being into Buddhism?

I interpreted it more like, people who fit the Geek archetype who are Buddhists. And the Geek archetype has a technological element, but it also refers to somebody who's very process oriented, who tends to approach things analytically, who likes to tinker and hack things, in addition to making full use of the internet and modern communication technology.

I interpreted it more like, people who fit the Geek archetype who are Buddhists. And the Geek archetype has a technological element, but it also refers to somebody who's very process oriented, who tends to approach things analytically, who likes to tinker and hack things, in addition to making full use of the internet and modern communication technology.

-cruxdestruct

That's probably it.

Maybe "nerd" is more the word for what I was talking about. You know "star wars nerd," etc. ??

I'm not a geek.
Just curious.

This is from the outside looking in -- at least I thought so.

It's like Big Pun said: I'm not a Buddhist, I just meditate a lot.

Shit, I should have said 'Sit a lot'!

Further emptiness after the fact,

The space between brings up the slack.

I don’t I do I wish I might -

Peace, kindness, anger, fright.

This guy next to me

-- such a jerk.

With a well-placed phrase

It’s him I’ll hurt

However, therefore, nonetheless,

Personal dynamics will coalesce

Into a thing no one can find

So you better not get left behind.

DIY isn't just a product of the internet culture [...] there is also, I think, a DIY core to all people who take this stuff seriously. A need to utimately test things out for themselves, to come to insights that are right and correct and accurate because they are original to them whether or not the discoveries ultimately jive with an existing tradition or teacher.
The Buddha's "be a light unto yourself" is probably the ultimate DIY-inspired statement. Now, how that goes with and compliments "buddha," "dharma," and "sangha" is still, at this point, a complete mystery to me.

-michaelmonson

really well said and that last--- a fantastic question that seems to me to cut right to the heart of the contemporary experience of western buddhists, especially those who aren't simply coffee table/internet buddhists but rather for whom practice, experience, and insight are key.

ultimately what I liked about the article was the same as what I didn't like about it. Ethan makes a good critique of what Trungpa called Spiritual Materialism, but I think that tying that critique to the label "diy" and equating the two is a bit off. Especially considering the great point you make above, Mike. Although he comes off (to me) as very funny, friendly, courageous socially for giving a challenging talk, and an insightful teacher there seems to be an element of authoritarianism inherent in the way he subtly seems to link the diy approach with spiritual materialism. *

As if only a teacher can push us from our comfort zones, ask us to try practices which go against our intuitive preferences, and bring awareness to our blindspots! lol

So, how do we begin to reconcile being lights unto ourselves with buddha, dharma and sangha? It's a really great question. And, perhaps ironically given the gist of Ethan's talk, I believe this question is exactly what's being worked with in the online practice world. T

his pragmatic/poetic/inquisitive/ online practice scene, of which this forum is one facet, is online rather than not for the simple reason that this technology facilitates connections between folks based on their interests rather than geography.

In fact, couldn't we say that the geography of the internet IS a geography of interest, regions of shared experience, intent and dialogue rather than regions of shared ethnicity, culture and geography?

There are many implications of this change in our human experience of "place", but one of the nicer ones is that people can share know-how and information-- and thus forge relationships-- across vast geographical distances in a much more effective way than at any time in the past .

*(Interesting in this connection that he actually points out that the
issue of authoritarianism is a tension point in the transmission of the
dharma from cultures like Tibet and Japan to Western cultures in which
there is an increasing historical distance from pervasive hierarchies
organizing everyday life. I mean, Guru centered spirituality-- or Buddha
centered Sanghas-- must have seemed much more, well, ordinary in a
culture where similar social arrangements characterized the learning of anything.
And as nowadays in the West we like to learn our trades in more
egalitarian organizations (wherein degrees of proficiency and specialty
are still recognized) why wouldn't we approach dharma in the same way? And isn't this latter vision exactly what's emerging in western buddhism through the online practice scenes?)

Thanks Jake.

Of the probably 1000s of posts I've written on this stuff in the past three or four years, this was actually my favorite ever and it was lonely sitting there for a couple of days with no apparent attention or response.

I'm not comfortable with gurus for sure, for personal reasons or cultural reasons I can't quite discern. I know I have a problem with authority figures, especially male authority figures (I just can't bring myself to trust them). Plus, I was SO influenced by Krishnamurti in my late teens and twenties that it is hard to come off of a preference for a sort of independant original discovery purposely undertaken with as little influence from paths, or teachings, or institutions as humanly possible.

I'm sure what follows isn't an original thought: Like it or not humans are connecting and communicating digitally. And, the thing that we are when we connect that way isn't quite the same thing we are face to face, in small groups, large groups, flesh and blood communities, etc. It's a digital version of ourselves that is then connected to the flesh and blood us and the flesh and blood others in some new way. I don't understand it at all but I know it is here to stay and there I have no interest in fighting it as an enevitable element of our culture.

I have so many ideas and feelings about all of this and no time to work it all out so I'll stop here for now.

The fact is I wouldn't have had access to the teachings and ideas and people who have become my "sangha" and "dharma" without the internet. The actual brick and mortar teachings I had access to included a local informal meditation group without a "teacher" that met on Thursday evenings (not always a convenient time), two Tibetan monasteries (40 miles away and not of interest), a Tendai temple (which I love, but a 40 mile drive each way on a weekday night to attend), and a few others. Plus I have been traveling for work extensively for the last year, so that makes it even harder.

So to find people online who have not only specific knowledge relating to my practice but can be reached at all hours from anywhere there's an internet connection is a treasure.

I do think the caution is that one needs to absolutely prioritize practice, and stick to a practice. Dabbling with this and that is important perhaps in the beginning, to find the kind of practice and approach that resonates with you. But once you get beyond the beginning stages, if you keep switching things around it can be an avoidance mechanism. "This is hard, not working for me, frustrating....maybe I'll try something else." Sometimes the fact is it's just hard and sucky and THAT is what you need to stare in the face and be with.

I follow my gut with practice, but I know my gut and it's a good guide. Some people don't have as good a gut. Or they do, but then they second guess it and don't listen to it.

The other thing was, once my practice turned that corner where it started getting deep, I basically stopped reading much of anything. I figured every hour spent reading this or that philosophy or explanation could just as well be spent sitting. I think "learning" can be a support for some people, but it can also be a trap of its own. Does knowing all about this or that phenomenon or experience or whatever really help? No, you ultimately have to experience everything yourself. Sometimes you want to read and read in the hope that somehow you'll grasp something that really just needs to be purely experienced. On the other hand, once in a while you read or hear something that triggers a bit of an "aha!" and points you at something you were overlooking in your practice. So, balance. The middle way and all that.

@Mike That was such a good post, I felt it would look a bit lame to write, "me, too!".

@Jake Spiritual Materialism, now *that's* interesting, because by saying, "All the secrets of Vajrayana for example can be found on Wikipedia, but you should still go join a lineage" he's implying that there actually *is* a valuable secret guarded by the lineages that's not found on Wikipedia. It's just this secret ingredient which spiritual materialism covets, and because it can't be found, it must be really well kept...

There is no secret ingredient, of course. Here's a quote right out of a Hollywood animation: "There is no secret ingredient: *you* are the secret ingredient" (Kung Fu Panda). And it sounds trite and shallow, and it's from a silly kung-fu animated movie. But it's true: there is no secret ingredient. That's not even a secret. It's so plain and common in fact that it can even feature in mass-market entertainment. It is, however, much more honest and self-critical than any bait-and-switch scheme of claiming the opposite by scoffing at spiritual materialism while promoting lineages.

Now if he'd said, "the advantage of having a teacher (over just reading Wikipedia) is that they can call you on your bullshit and point out interesting stuff, which Wikipedia won't necessarily do for you", then that would have been great, except that it would have been a bit unclear why you need a teacher to do that in the first place: almost anybody, any real friend, can do that.

In a slightly comical way, Ethan's hinting at scarce teachings or other secret ingredients reminds me of the beautiful post-modernist one-liner "It may be that nothing is true, and everything is permitted". What the post-modernists did with it of course was to *believe* it and turn it into a foundational truth, using it to sort out what was permissible in post-modernism...

I'll stop ranting now.

Cheers,
Florian

I had a Skype lesson/session yesterday for the first time in a very long time. It was nice to get what I would call "validation" from someone who's been there, done that.
It was online, and it was good
Mike, I'm gonna come see you face to face in two weeks. Last time we met I was struck by how much you were just like "you," which is the you I know here online. I felt the same way meeting Tom a few weeks ago, and Kenneth Folk, and Vince Horn, and Gozen, and Hokai Sobol, and so on, and on. Some people are irresistibly drawn to creating characters and false personas in this online realm. Others are just who they are and that's one thing that's different about 99% of the folks in the online dharma scene. There is far less persona nonsense and a lot more gennuine-ness.





-cmarti

Chris, that's been so true for everyone I've met in person or via video chat - just really sincere, honest, cool, interesting people with no agendas and no bullshit. I've been endlessly impressed and honored to know everyone I've interacted with in the online dharma community (in all its forms).

Ona, I can say this having been a message board host and moderator for years and years but this phenomenon is Truly Amazing.



-cmarti

Maybe we're just wearing rose colored glasses... or beer goggles... or something. Or we took them off. lol

That's another facet that is related to internet and modern western culture, if not identical with it. I'm susceptible to it, too; one of my worst habits is a tendency to get really intellectually invested in some new topic of learning, for a couple days—I will decide, 'fuck it, I'm gonna learn Finnish' and then spend three or four hypomanic days really chowing down on Finnish, before I totally burn out and realize I don't actually give much of a shit.

This has not yet happened with my dharma practice, a fact for which I am intensely grateful. Part of that is because the act of sitting is a natural corrective against that kind of behavior; but I think also part of it is that I totally committed, I became a straight up *Buddhist*, took the refuges, bought the t-shirt, et cetera. I've got one tradition and no other. That's not just chauvinism—though it's partially chauvinism—it's also a recognition of the fact that one of the real pitfalls of the geek mindset, of which I am most surely a possessor, is a tendency towards dilettantism and superficiality. This is something that Ethan expressed very clearly in his talk and though he might have muddied the waters by attacking on too many fronts at once, I think he's absolutely right on this one. Leave aside for the moment the question of where you get your information, be it skype or wikipedia or a guru or the Pali canon. I think a much more crucial question is, what is it about the way we live now that makes it so easy to devote oneself to so many things, unseriously, to engage at a surface level with a wide range of alluring and appealing realms of expertise? Is it the emergence of information technology and the unprecedented access to information? Is it our culture's relatively newly renewed obsession with craft, quality, so that every member of the less-secure-than-ever middle class now feels a yawning inferiority if they are not an expert on beer, wine, food, music, vodka, and at least one popular sport (the true modern renaissance man loves tennis, enjoys but doesn't follow baseball, and still eschews Nascar)? Is it a natural result of the death of the career, the devaluation of professional expertise?

My point is, it's a big trend that affects a huge swath of my generation, dharma practitioners or no. And for those of us who are dharma practitioners, it desperately needs to be addressed. But my intuition is that the roots of this tendency are wide ranging enough that while joining a human-bean sangha is a good and perhaps even necessary step, it's not necessarily enough to say 'get off the internet'. My intuition is that, just as Zen (moreso than other practices, I'd go so far as to say) was the cultural agonist appropriate to the needs of the yet-unconverted Beats, there is some different dharma that is appropriate to the needs of, and corrective to the faults of me and many of the people at the Buddhist Geeks conference. I dunno what dharma that might be. Obviously pragmatic/hardcore/internet dharma is a natural product of that culture. But my concern is that as much as it is a natural and sympathetic expression of that culture's values, it doesn't correct or challenge the mindset of the Western Modern in the places that the mindset needs challenging. (I believe my practice does, of course, but I'm biased!)

You raise some interesting points. I know I grew up in a lefty-hippie town where "don't tell me what to do" and "stick it to the man" and "free to be" were the mantras of the adults. People I know of that generation (my parents' age) who were influenced by that perspective tend to despise expertise, authority, "the elite," academia, specialization, etc. They tend to value intuition, feelings, the little guy, having a say.**

Working with a traditional teacher in a traditional religion (which I did for years, before this meditation thing), means sit down, shut up, and watch. When you finally get asked to contribute, it's an amazing honor and acknowledgment of the respect you've shown through deference and not piping up with questions and opinions.

Fact is there's a lot of good in that, including learning some self discipline.

But it's not very comfortable for most people in today's culture.

I have mixed feelings about it. For me, I learned a ton, but it also got me stuck in a trap of my own making (waiting for someone to fix my life for me). But being in that trap opened the door to seeing how I'd been mistaken, and moving on.

**ETA: of course I'm not saying it only applies to that generation - also many in mine and many among "Gen Y" - depends how you were raised or what you are rebelling against I guess.

ETA: and perhaps the takeaway is that any attitude (whether "I must follow a guru" or "don't tell me what to do") can be a dogma and a trap, something we cling to as the only right way. Perhaps "whatever floats your boat" can be a dogma, too.

[...] Leave aside for the moment the question of where you get your information, be it skype or wikipedia or a guru or the Pali canon. I think a much more crucial question is, what is it about the way we live now that makes it so easy to devote oneself to so many things, unseriously, to engage at a surface level with a wide range of alluring and appealing realms of expertise? Is it the emergence of information technology and the unprecedented access to information? Is it our culture's relatively newly renewed obsession with craft, quality, so that every member of the less-secure-than-ever middle class now feels a yawning inferiority if they are not an expert on beer, wine, food, music, vodka, and at least one popular sport (the true modern renaissance man loves tennis, enjoys but doesn't follow baseball, and still eschews Nascar)? Is it a natural result of the death of the career, the devaluation of professional expertise?

-cruxdestruct

These are great questions. There's the notion in sociology of "culture lag". Basically this notion points to the fact that often, objective social, economic, ecological and technological changes occur yet culture-- shared experiences, practices, meanings-- lags behind these changes. Only as the disparity grows and grows between culture and objective conditions does there come a tipping point where new forms of culture emerge on a broad scale in adaptive response to the earlier objective changes.

In terms of what you're pointing to, Zach, I would say that our culture has a huge blind spot about work. Someday in the future, when people look back with hindsight (just as we look back upon the odd debates of medieval scholastic philosophers), I think the chief thing they notice will be our culture's inability to grasp that as technology unfolds, the amount of work that humans have to do will continue to fall (in comparison to the past ten thousand years of farming culture, which we still mostly live with;; whether the amount of work required will ever drop to hunter-gatherer levels again I don't know). They will look back on our politicians arguing about the best way to "create jobs" and laugh in perplexity as we look back on scholastics arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Meanwhile, as people get more and more free time, we are challenged to return to notions of craft, quality, and purpose in daily life which goes beyond mere "work" whether blue or white collar. We are challenged to find something better to do with our free time than squander it on entertainment, workaholism, and other depressed/anxious/restless endeavors.

True practical dharma, beginning as it does on a basis of liberating attention and intention from blind conditioning and infusing the ongoing flow of life with an appreciative discernment, goes directly against the trends to superficiality and dilettantism which our current corporate-media-consumption-inducing culture encourages (after all, the best way to create jobs is to get people to buy things, and we all know that creating jobs is the very important thing economically, so...). Of course the irony is that, inevitably to a large extent the only media available to propagate dharma are those very corporate-consumerist-media!

My interpretation is, because the notion that it is desirable and feasible for every healthy citizen to have a full-time job and earn a living from that job to support themselves and their family is a cultural assumption that is growing increasingly outdated, as productivity and population both increase, increasingly reducing the amount of 'available' labor—the fact that labor and toil is even seen as a scarce resource for which one competes could also be seen as an assumption which has outlasted the technological age in which it was birthed.

Which I find interesting, Jake, and hadn't thought about before. Will you say some more on that concepts relationship to dharma?


EDIT... And further, because the notion that what is needed is to 'create jobs' implies that a job is the ultimate good, before quality of life, which might seem terribly retrograde and short-sighted to a society that has transitioned somewhat to a happiness-based economy.