Inquiry: He should teach differently.

 

Statement: He should teach differently.

  1. True?
    Yes. Feels true. My thoughts tell me it is true. Some others agree with me.
  2. Sure?
    No. Everything in his background tells him to teach that way. And I also don’t know that doing it differently would be better for him or his students. It certainly gives me a great deal of food for inquiry.
  3. What happens when I believe that thought?
    • Where does my mind go?
      • I complain about him in my own mind:
      • When he speaks, he overgeneralize, is over dramatic and one-sided. (Only rarely does he acknowledge the different facets of a situation or topic.)
      • He puts down thoughts and confusion, making it appear as an enemy, in an attempt to help people disidentify from it. (Although it seems that creating this split only deepens the drama and keeps identification there. A sincere appreciation for even the confusion seems more appropriate in inviting a release of identification out of it.)
      • He uses a very imprecise language, for instance making it appear that thoughts – rather than taking them as true – are a problem in themselves. (Going into the anti-intellectual trap).
      • He seems to come from a belief of having to shock his students (rather than from what naturally arises in the situation) and does so through drama and exaggeration (rather than clarity and precision). It seems artificial and forced, and not very effective. For me, it only makes me question his teaching strategy.
      • He gives advice far beyond what he is qualified to give advice about. (What jobs his students should take and so on.)
      • He doesn’t differentiate soul level awakening (content of awareness as one, an “I” that is “one with” existence) with Ground awakening. He makes it sound as if he is talking about an “ultimate” awakening, while what he is describing has all the characteristics of a soul level awakening.
      • He is patronizing. He talks down to his students. Even when talking about very basic things to people who have studied with him for 30 or more years, he says “you won’t understand this, it is too advanced for you, but I’ll say it anyway”.
      • He pretends that his teachings are more advanced and special than what they really are.
      • He goes to memory and uses the same phrases over and over, rather than speaking with fresh words from what is alive for him here now.
      • He speaks about realizations, for hours and hours, rather than use pointing-out instructions so people can find it for themselves here and now.
      • He hides his position at the center. His name does not appear anywhere, even though he is behind the decisions and teachings.
      • He hides and is deceptive about the history of the teachings, rather than being up-front and clear about it.
  4. Who would I be without that thought?
    • Receptive. Clear. Curious.
    • Interested in and receptive to the gold in his teachings, behind his teaching style. And interested in noticing more consciously what teaching styles work better for me.
    • I don’t need to make him wrong and myself right. I can find the gold in the situation.
    • I am receptive to finding in myself what I see in him, and see that my stories about him are equally – or more – valid about myself.
  5. Turnarounds.
    • He shouldn’t teach differently.
      • Yes. Everything in his background tells him to teach this way.
      • Some students seems to get a lot out of the exact way he is teaching.
      • His teaching style triggers beliefs in me, so I get to notice and inquire into them.
    • I should teach differently.
      • Yes. The advice is for me. When I talk to myself or others, I can follow my own advice. (Not talk down to people, be precise, and so on.)
      • Also, when I tell myself stories about him, I can “teach” myself differently – from more clarity and receptivity rather than being caught up in a belief.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *