Stuart Lachs is THE MAN

People who I've actually seen up close who seemed, somehow, "awakened" -

Mel Weitzman

Steven Weintraub

Chris Marti (seriously)

This guy I met in an AA meeting in Laguna Beach in 1979

People I've met or encountered who might be considered awakened that didn't give off the vibe (to me at least on that day or days):

Ed Brown

Norman Fischer

Grace Shireson (she is a "dharma heir" of Mel Weitzman and the things she says sound pretty good but up close she just seems cranky and annoyed, which doesn't mean she isn't awake )

All the various monks and priests and teachers at San Francisco and Berkeley Zen centers.

Anyone who led Spirit Rock retreats I went to back in the 90s (I can't remember their names)

Mike, I really do think you are underestimating the audience for Kornfield's podcasts. In my experience most adults are smart enough to know when a story is being used to make a point. That goes doubly for those of us who listen to Buddhism podcasts. I've been listening to the Unfettered Mind podcasts recently. Ken McLeod uses all kinds of stories in them. Many, many, many stories, some he claims are true, some not. But at no time was I confused about the point or concerned about whether they were real life true stories or not because they were obviously being used as tools to teach.
We'll have to disagree on this, I suppose.

-cmarti

I agree (that we'll just have to disagree). I guess I could be wrong

Hmmm. Hagiography is an interesting genre of literature. Like every other cultural artifact, it will be put to radically
different uses depending on the developmental level, personality
style and degree of wellness or neurosis of those who read them.

Buying into idealizations as literal truths certainly makes it easier to let oneself off the hook from the dirty work of actually waking up, while simultaneously feeling inferior in the face of the idealized saint. If you "can't get there from here" than you don't have to enter the path, and lose your props and masks and self-deceptions. You can actually use dharma to add to the latter, and the payoff for feeling inferior to the saint is feeling superior to the poor schmucks who don't even know about buddhism and meditation like you do.

On the other hand, it also puts something natural and quite healthy, awakening, out of your reach if you're sincere yet lacking the knowledge that this is possible and the how to. When you go to a group or teacher looking for guidance, you're as likely to run into a bunch of well meaning folks looking for something to belong to peppered with the more screwed up folks of option one, the latter propbably being the lay teachers and such.

And you could also relate to it as a poetic evocation of archetypal qualities that are part of our true nature. And you might be lucky to stumble across a few others who share that attitude and have a serious practice.

To expand a bit on Jake's point-- I think there is an important, but easily overlooked, function of mythology/symbolic stories: human beings, and cultures, are hungry for meaning and inspiration. We get those things from stories-- stories that can be crude exaggerations to make a point for simpler folks, but that can also be viewed in more sophisticated, nuanced ways. And if you look at religious cultures as whole bodies, not just parts [Islamic hagiographies AND the sly comic antics of Nasruddin; Tibetan hagiographies AND the outrageous exploits of Drukpa Kunley; Christian miracles AND-- what? maybe Christianity is the exception that proves the rule! And maybe this lack of humor explains why we converts to the other religions find stories such a vexed issue, and are so concerned to determine 'just the facts, ma'am'.]

There is a Dzogchen saying that seems apropos: 'The higher the teaching, the lower the throne.' The explanation I have heard is this: at the beginning stages of practice, students generally need to believe the teacher is very different from themselves in every way. They need the example of someone extraordinary to inspire them with hope and the determination to practice. So when they go into the shrine room, the Lama is already arranged on his high throne like a perfectly draped buddha statue; they don't see him come, go, eat, sleep, use the privy, or otherwise give evidence of being an ordinary human. It takes a very dedicated and perceptive student to be able to deal with a Dzogchen master, who is as likely to be rubbing elbows with students in daily life, accomplishing ordinary tasks, and giving spontaneous pointing-out instructions that sound like ordinary conversation-- as doing formal Lama duty in the shrine room. A beginner will not see the extraordinary in the ordinary; the ability to do so is the fruit of practice in itself.

This is a longwinded way of suggesting that there's more than the Ammur'kin democratic-levelling approach that could be considered; there are possibilities beyond right or wrong.

Yes, and to bounce back @ you Kate, there is yet another element to this which I have noticed in my own experience at least. Which is that there is a sort of visionary truth to the archetype of "perfection" expressed in 'the master".

But there is also the way this visionary truth resonates on an existential level for me: nothing I have learned in life or practice forecloses the possibility of a transformation of experience that is far more radical than what is often referred to in our online communities.

A classical form of awakening in which one is free not just of the neurotic needs to defend against full awareness of klesha or to compulsively express them in word or deed, but which addresses and relieves the fundamental neurosis that IS the klesha-mind.

I detect traces of both these forms or depths of awakening in the traditions, and moreover I have experienced some of the first and have seen, in learning better how my experience functions, how the second could be a real possibility. In fact, the first freedom (from compulsive expression or retroflective suppression/denial of klesha) comes from, in my experience, gaining confidence in the primordiality of the second, complete, mode of freedom. Seeing the superfluity of suffering, and the way in which in the first instant, each and every "moment" of life begins in a completely pure, perfect way, means that living completely free of suffering would be extraordinarily effortless rather than the result of struggle and effort.

So there is a way in which the archetype of the "master" has always resonated with my own buddhanature for me, drawing it out. But that's not to discount either the neurotic (suffering-creating) reasons one might want to be completely free of suffering, or the strange interpersonal neuroses and downright havoc which emerge in social contexts in which the archetypes of "master", "disciple", "ignorant sentient being", and so on are projected naively rather then seen for what they are.

Kate, I love what you said. Especially: "I think there is an important, but easily overlooked, function of
mythology/symbolic stories: human beings, and cultures, are hungry for
meaning and inspiration. We get those things from stories-- stories that
can be crude exaggerations to make a point for simpler folks, but that
can also be viewed in more sophisticated, nuanced ways."

Our stories are beautiful (even ugly), like art, music, costume, performance, and so many other facets of human life. And how fascinating those stories are, and how fascinating which stories (of any kind, not just relating to meditation or Buddhism, etc.) resonate with a person at which times in ones life. Think about what stories you read with passion as a 10 year old, as a 20 year old, etc., which songs you loved, which movies were your favorite kind - which spoke to the confusion or obsession or somehow seemed to explain the world you were immersed in at the time.

love stories
hate lies

"story" = a fictional narrative

"lie" = story presented as true that is actually false and/or exaggerated or with details subtly changed in order to make a certain point.

Is it always clear and invariable which are stories and which are lies: Jesus-- story, lie, or fact? The 'big bang' origin of the cosmos-- story, lie, or fact? Etc...

Or 'none of the above'?

Jesus - story

big bang - theory

Perhaps more close to home, what about my grandfather's story about spending time in a POW camp? Colored by memory, desire, fear, grief, etc, stretched by time, details subtly shifting and changing year by year in the retelling. Was it just like he said? Was he even really there? Does it really matter? Isn't there a real truth in his story even when it gets to the point where very little "fact" remains in it?

imo, the most important "fact" the story might convey could be "I was really frightened then." or "We felt so heroic then." Whether he fought this many or that many enemy or really ate bugs or whatever is not actually very important. That's where I think being so hard on that line of story/myth/lie is missing something. Sometimes the most important part of a story is why it is being told and the things it points to, not the measurable lab-result facts.

Inner anthropologist loves a good story (or "lie").

If I can add one thing to the fictionalized example of my grandfather's POW story - another thing that story might be saying, when he is 80 years old and sitting in his recliner, is "I am so old now, and I feel like there's not much to hold onto anymore, but I have a memory of being young and strong and courageous, and I want you to think about me that way."

Wow, what an intense story. That's exActly what I'm talking about. Cynicism is just as limiting as idealization when it comes to what's possible for human freedom. I see no reason to reject the possibility of finding a similar freedom from reactivity as the self-imolating monk. The question isn't whether it's possible but whether I want it, or something else, and if I want it, whether I know or am willing to learn how to become that way.

I can see how living that way wouldn't contradict anything I know about how experience functions. It would only contradict all my habitual attempts to control my experience. Mightn't we-- in shooting down the possibility of such radical freedom for US-- merely be justifying our habitual resistances to life? That's how it feels to me anyway.

The trick seems to be to avoid justifying my habitual patterns OR condemning them, setting up "freedom" or "peace" as a standard against which all klesha would by judged and found lacking. For that very gesture of finding "lack" in this living moment is exactly that which constitutes my alienation from this living moment, my habitual reactivity, my unfreedom and disturbance.

Does this make sense?

The movie Rashomon seems to be pointing out that we exist in a web of stories, which are-- at best-- editions of 'real' experience. One of the brilliant things about Buddhism is its account of the interdependent nature of mind and life: I cannot experience anything that I refuse to believe possible. It's as if the sensory equipment to perceive the impossible is 'offline'-- for me. Maybe not so, for someone else.

I heard a great story today from Liu Ming, about how when he was young and wanting to learn Chinese medicine in China, he sought out a 'Bone Doctor' [which seem to be some order of osteopath cum miracle-worker]. He never was able to learn anything from the man, though: he was such a master of the art that the impossible cases were brought to him. LM would look at the condition of the patient-- like the young girl whose arm was so dislocated it was protruding out her back under the scapula-- and black out! Slapped awake by the doctor's assistant, he heaved copiously and passed out again. And, essentially, this happened every time!

This is getting confusing to me.

I certainly have no problem with "stories," and the use of stories to educate, teach, make points,

I also understand that presenting purely objective facts with no subjective elements from the teller or the listener is virtually impossible.

I also have no problem with real, factual stories about real people and real events that are inspiring, amazing, dramatic, life changing. (the self emmolating monk is quite a story and is no doubt basically true. I think, for me, Halberstam borders on hagiography when he compares the monk's "outward composure" with the wailing crowd around him -- I know that there has been criticisms of Halberstam's reportage that he would simplify his narratives in order to fit them and various real life characters into his own political points of view and his need to create well-rounded "stories." He was even accused of purposefully reporting false information about Diem because he did not like Diem's policies.)

My problem is when people tell stories that are presented as factual that actually contain fictional elements that are then repeated over and over as the actual truth. This bothers me. A lot. I think it is dishonest and does nothing to enhance anyone's spritual life or growth. Rather, it stunts or retards that growth and just shows a basic disregard for the kind of relentless pursuit of truth of what is actually going on that is necessary for real insight. And, in a religious or spiritual context I truly believe such story telling is -- consciously or unconsciously -- often used to lull the audience into a kind of sentimental trance that will make it more likely they will reach for their wallets or checkbooks in order to support teachers and institutions.

And, for sure, I am often guilty of falling for such stories as well as making the mistake of trying to alter my own realities in order to make myself look good, in order to hide the real truth from myself and others because I just can't handle dealing with who I really am and what I am really up to. But, just because I often participate in such activities as the author or the listener/reader doesn't mean I think it is a good idea or that I don't think it is fundamentally immoral.

Mike, I hope that what I have been doing here, riffing on the theme thrown out, doesn't seem like anything more hard-edged and argumentative than that. I just like noodling around. I'm not sure I'm a very serious person anymore, in these days of my dotage.

@ Mike: you are making an important point about the ways the inherent fluidity and openness of stories can be used to deceive people.

We all seem to agree that an "objective" story is impossible. Also a "final" story to which nothing could be added or subtracted from another perspective. So it seems we all agree that human story telling has this ambiguity and openness. And yet we all seem to agree that this openness, ambiguity, perspectivity, and incompleteness of our human stories leaves us able to discern attempts at deception. We don't just throw up our hands and say "well, narrative is open and perspectival, so how can I judge lies and truths?"

So maybe the immoral use of stories is that which attempts to present a story as fixed, closed, final, complete. This is THE story, and this is HOW it's told.

Mike, I hope that what I have been doing here, riffing on the theme thrown out, doesn't seem like anything more hard-edged and argumentative than that. I just like noodling around. I'm not sure I'm a very serious person anymore, in these days of my dotage.

-kategowen

Maybe I'm becoming too serious.

One of the many things I learned when being trained to do historical-critical exegesis during undergrad (with the Christian Bible, primarily) was to ALWAYS consider the author's intent, as well as the view(s) intended audience (as much as can be deciphered).

We can talk about how no story is completely objective. We can say that there are many different angles to these historical accounts, and that zeroing in on inconsistencies or blatant untruths can lead to missing some kind of greater point or purpose. My opinion is that one of the surest strategies toward discovering the intent of an action (in this case, the writing and circulation of hagiography) is to determine (dare I say intuit) its function.

Lachs seems very interested in the function of these stories; in how they have been integral in fostering a particular context in which certain kinds of immoral or unethical behavior can be (and has been) acted out with few (if any) immediate repercussions. Human language has a dark side. Ideas can be incredibly powerful. I don't even need to provide specific examples - we all know of many (unless we've been living under a rock our whole lives). The best way to transform of a language-caused function is through more learning. Ironic, yes, but true. Re-framing, de-fusion, taking more perspectives: all work to take the wind out of the sails of an otherwise powerful, behavior-motivating relational frame.

Of course, deconstruction can be OVER applied, reducing anything language based to being completely meaningless. But in terms of its power to take the charge out of nefarious vehicles of confusion - thereby altering their function - I say bring it on. So long as the purpose is pragmatic, leading to increased well-being of the vulnerable population involved, I say bring it on.

@jake - "So maybe the immoral use of stories is that which attempts to present a
story as fixed, closed, final, complete. This is THE story, and this is
HOW it's told."

I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Of course, deconstruction can be OVER applied, reducing anything language based to being completely meaningless. But in terms of its power to take the charge out of nefarious vehicles of confusion - thereby altering their function - I say bring it on. So long as the purpose is pragmatic, leading to increased well-being of the vulnerable population involved, I say bring it on. -- A hipster that would be if only he could be



This is important for me. If I understand motivation in Lach's article(s), and know it to be right and good. What are mine?

Why am I particularly annoyed by the hagiography in the two examples of Lachs and in the various teachers I've encountered over the years (as well as so many politicians and marketing people of course).

I'm not really sure, but if the particular rage I feel on this subject is any clue, I imagine it has as much if not more to do with my own private psychology than it does with a legitimate pragmatic purpose.

I confess to being a little confused about the two instances about which Lachs was writing-- partly because my computer choked at about pg. 10 and I could never read the rest!

Of what I COULD read, he seemed not so much to be lodging charges against Nowick or Sheng Yen, as to be expressing distaste over the not unusual inflated claims about The Zen Master, that make a topiary out of the raw facts, aimed at consoling and instilling confidence in the naive, who require a simple narrative.-- or have I missed something important?

There certainly ARE major recent and historical cases of flat-out misrepresentation of teachers and their actions; and these are lies worth denouncing, whose purpose is to fleece and abuse their followers. I'll join the chorus of the outraged, in the cases of Adi Da, or 'Zen Master Rama,' or any number of people whose behavior went far beyond exaggerating their own importance.

I had never heard of Adi Da. Reading up on him, he seems like a classic New Age cult leader. But he actually made some really neat art: