Teacher – Disciple Relationships

Summary Report by Piotr Sikora

Method of learning

During last year we had six on-line lessons on the teacher – disciple relationship (T-D). They had the following form: Each lesson was led by a representative of a particular tradition. The task of such a person was to choose some short key texts from her/his tradition which could shed light on T-D (these text were disseminated several day in advance before the lesson) and explain the most important points the texts contain. The presentation was followed by questions and comments made by other participants and answers of the person leading the lesson.

The main advantage of such a method was that it enhanced the process of mutual learning and facilitated gaining detailed knowledge and deeper understanding of what the other traditions have to say about an important aspect of spiritual and mystical life. Moreover, feedback given by other participants constituted the background over against which each person presenting her/his own tradition could deepen her/his self- understanding.

The method we proceed with allowed people who participated in the lessons to gain many deep and inspiring personal insights. Such insights, arising during live conversation, are hardly describable in the general report. Nevertheless, our conversations brought about also some insights of more general character and value.

What turned during our lessons was that T-D can be conceived in different ways. These ways are closely connected to other important problems which every tradition have to deal with. Such problems includes: What is the nature of Ultimate Reality? What are the human predicaments? What does the human ultimate end (salvation/liberation) consists in? How do we conceive the knowledge/wisdom which is to be taught/transmitted? 

 

Typology of possible models of T-D

In what follows I’ll try to make a typology of possible models of T-D.  There are several issues which constitute “the lines of distinction” between various models of T-D.  

I

With respect to the nature of knowledge to be learned one can discern two basic models of T-D:

When knowledge/wisdom to be transmitted by the teacher/master is regarded as non-conceptual, and, by consequence, graspable only by some kind of mystical (ontological) participation in or merging with the source of that wisdom (e.g. in the Divine Mind) the T-D is characterized by total submission of the disciple to the teacher, the unconditioned trust, and the non-questioning attitude of mind (see: Sufi tale of Khidr and Musa/Moses or Chassidic stories of Bal Shem Tow and his disciples). In this model, the teacher is claimed to have him/herself merged with the divine mind/reality, and in that way to have attained the level of spiritual development hidden from the disciple. This is the reason why the latter should not question any action of the former and exhibit the attitude of awe towards her/him.  

On the other hand, when knowledge is regarded as of basically hermeneutical and argumentative character, and spiritual wisdom is based on the process of interpretation of holy scriptures of a given tradition, the T-D is much more dense, dynamic, dialogical and dialectical. In this model there is much more room for questioning and argumentation (the paradigmatic example seems to be here that of Jewish rabbinic tradition of learning).

Despite the differences, both models (and all of the traditions discussed) allow that the T-D is not totally asymmetrical, i.e. that the master/teacher learns also in the process.

It was commonly recognized by the participants of our lessons that contemporary individualistic and democratic culture poses a serious threat for T-D as it is classically understood. This threat is especially significant for the model based on the disciple’s trust and her/his non-questioning attitude of mind.

What deserves further discussion is the detailed description of the process of learning and spiritual development of the disciple in connection with the role of the teacher. The following questions are worthy to be discussed:

What are the ways of teaching/guiding the disciple?

Are there any commonly used teaching techniques?

How do they depend on the nature of the goal of that process?

How do they determine the very relationship between T&D?

Are there general rules of conduct applicable to any disciple or does each disciple need her/his own way of treatment from the teacher’s part?

Can a disciple choose and change the teacher freely?

If so, are there any rules of the prudent choice and change?

Whether the process of learning / spiritual development constitutes such uniform reality that is requires to have only one teacher/master or is it so multidimensional that it allows each disciple to have simultaneously many teachers/masters?

II

The last question is connected with the other “line of distinction” between different models  of T-D, namely the problem concerning, as it were, the ontological strength of the bond between the disciple and the teacher. There is a model according to which the teacher in a way represents and/or personifies the Divine, being some kind of medium/intermediary necessary for the disciple to reach the Ultimate Reality. According to the opposite view one should regard the disciple’s relationship with the Ultimate/Divine as immediate/close as that of the teacher, and by consequence, the teacher is not to be conceived as a necessary medium, but rather as an advisor who helps the disciple understand and deepen her/his immediate relationship with the Ultimate. Traditions stemming from India, especially Sikhs, seem to prefer the former model. The so called ‘Abrahamic’ religions (especially Christianity) seem to prefer the latter.

The question which arises here, which we have not give definite answer to, is whether (and if so – to what extend and in what way) such a difference in understanding the ontological nature of the T-D bond is grounded in the broader ontological view (e.g. the way a given tradition conceives the transcendence and immanence of the Ultimate Reality). 

III

The models of T-D can also be divided with respect to the consequences each of them brings about for the structure of the religious community. In most of the traditions discussed (Chassidic Judaism, Sufi Islam, Hinduism) there seem to be an established hierarchical order in which the roles of the teacher/master and that of the disciple are precisely distinguished. In such traditions there exist more or less precisely determined lineages of spiritual masters. On the other hand, Christianity, while on institutional level has well established strict hierarchical structure (especially in its Catholic and Orthodox forms), on spiritual level is much more egalitarian. On the one hand, the only person who is to be conceived as the master, in the proper sense of the word, is risen Christ living within each Christian. On the other hand, no Christian should claim to attain a level at which s/he is not to be considered as a disciple – there is a universal need for having spiritual advisor/director/guide. On the other hand, it is rather the whole community – as the Body of the risen Christ – which plays the role of the teacher and transmitter of salvific wisdom/knowledge. Within the community each member may play a role of the teacher for other person in particular situation in her/his life. 

 

Commonalities across traditions

Despite many differences in the ways of conceiving T-D we have found across traditions there are some commonalities worth to be mentioned.

One of the most important commonality to be remarked consists in that that according to all of the traditions presented one cannot pursue a spiritual way without any kind of help from the part of her/his peers.

One can also find commonality in the way the traditions presented describe the personal qualities of both sides of the T-D.

As regards the spiritual teacher/master all of the traditions demand the person in question to be deeply engaged in pursuing the spiritual path (also during the learning process), and to have knowledge and understanding of spiritual resources of that tradition (especially its holy scriptures) and ability to discern particular, personal needs of each disciple. Moreover, all of the traditions agree on the basic moral characteristics of the teacher. S/he cannot engage in T-D for selfish motives, and should be full of respect, compassion and patience with respect to the student.

There are also characteristics of the disciple which all of the traditions regard as valuable. Among them the most commonly recognized and valued are: eagerness and devotion to the spiritual path (which includes striving to meet all the moral precepts demanded by her/his traditions), humble openness of mind and respect and trust towards the teacher.

 

Issues not sufficiently discussed during on-line lessons

There were also some important issues we only tackle without engaging in detailed discussion on them.

The first of them is the question of what is the theoretical basis for (a particular form of) the T-D in a particular tradition. Can one find systematized description of T-D in the primary sources of that tradition? If not, what is the way it has been developed in the course of history in?

The second issue which deserves further attention concerns the place and the role of women in the religious traditions. In the course of history the T-D was described mostly by men, and these are mostly men who played the role of the teachers. The question is to what extend and in what way listening to the female voices and allowing to model T-D in a female way (e.g. as a maternal relationship) can change our understanding and practice of T-D?

The third issue concerns the way of becoming teacher, and especially the process/moment when a given person changes the position of the disciple to that of the teacher.