The Courage to Teach

On Teaching and Teachers

by Michael Dolan/ B.V. Mahayogi

Continuing with the ideas expressed in the last post, there is an interesting paradox in the act of teaching.

Any teaching involves ego, since the teacher adopts the position of knowing something.

But what if the teaching is about how to get rid of the ego? How to teach the art of giving up the ego?

As soon as anyone says, “I know how to teach,” and accepts the business of being guru, he is indulging in a kind of ego, what is called in Sanskrit as acharaya-abhiman. But this is unavoidable.

Teaching is an action of compassion, or it should be. Teaching should never be about ego-gratification. Adopting the pose of “teacher” means accepting the teacher-student relationship. So a teacher must drop the mantle of “mystic” and wear the “teacher hat,” at least as long as he is “in class.” Of course, a true acharya is always “in class,” since he is expected to teach by example. The word acharya means, “One who teaches by example.” He may also teach by precept, but his example is expected to match or even exceed his precept. This puts a special strain on the spiritual teacher, since he is forced to wear the “teacher hat” 24 hours a day.

An ordinary school teacher can go home at the end of the day and be a musician or work on writing his novel. He may have a social life with friends or a romantic life which he pursues outside of school.

But a spiritual teacher is expected to live the example 24 hours a day, constantly teaching. He may not discard the “teacher hat” and take up the mantle of mystic, for this will not be understood by his students. Gaura Kishore Das Babaji Maharaja refused students for this very reason. He was not interested in the ego of teaching. But if no mystics accept the role of teachers we will be deprived of guidance.

Deep compassion dictates that a realized soul reaches out to those who are spiritually impoverished to give them a helping hand, even at the risk of becoming famous and acquiring great ego gratification. So the acharya is faced with the daunting task of overcoming acharya-abhiman even while accepting the teaching role.

Disciples or students, at the same time, demand authenticity. They want a true mystic as guru. Unfortunately, because of the reasons outlined above, mystics prefer not to teach. Some students are absolutely determined to find the most retired of mystics and convert him into a teacher. This way, they can claim a true “Uttama-adhikari” or “ultimate-qualified” or “confirmed genius” guru as their master. Wanting to claim the highest-qualified guru as teacher, is, of course, another ego trip.

In a sense, it doesn’t matter if a confirmed genius of the highest order tells me not to eat the blue crayons, or if it is merely a simple kindergarten teacher. The confirmed genius conveys none of his virtuosity when demonstrating to his violin student how to play a scale.

Beethoven was a notoriously bad piano teacher, for he lacked the basic patience to deal with a beginner fumbling on the keys. The mad genius, deaf in his last days, would scream at his students and humiliate them. A lesser virtuouso might lack the genius of a Beethoven, and yet have the patience to work with children.

So, in a sense, it doesn’t matter if the person who first leads me on the path is coming from the highest spiritual platform. He may simply be an adequate teacher who knows about the path from a higher master. The important thing is that I am being shown the path. We need not insist that the path-finder be a famous cartographer. We may make much progress with a humble teacher.

The humility of the master, however, does not diminish the respect we owe him. Respect for the teacher is important for the student; if he values the teacher, he will value the education. So it is that we do our best to respect those who have the compassion and courage to teach.