Teacher Testing

Those who know, do.  Those who understand, teach.

Aristotle

Another potential teacher has come into my view. Whenever I receive a resonating message from someone else...a teacher....  I love and absorb the message but man...do I put the teacher under the microscope...especially if they say they had a transcendent experience.  I really want to know if they can be trusted as the carrier of a certain potential truth.

First...I look for intelligence. I want to know that they have the capacity to truly understand what they are expressing and calling truth. Then, I look to see how what they teach merges with science or with plain practical wisdom.  Can what  they are teaching and what they say  about what they experienced be validated?  I also look to see what backgrounds they come from.  From there I ask what is motivating their teaching: Ego with selfish, possibly narcissitic needs, or the Deeper Self that has a genuine desire to assist humanity? Then I ask how does all this resonate with what I already "know"? 

Well, when I put a teacher through this mental testing not all teachers pass. Some have seemed so intelligent  until I actually bought or read their books and I realized they were teaching something they truly did not understand enough to teach. I gave up on those teachers.  Others wrote right over my head...using intellectual jargon that made me feel "dumb" and confused....it seemed it was almost on purpose.  I said "adios" to those teachers.  

If there isn't enough connection to science ( quantum physics or yogic science mostly)  or practical wisdom (like Buddhism) in their teaching, I say "No...not for me." ( I tend to gravitate to a Buddhist, yogic, or quantum physics undertone.) That is a "tester bias"  on my part :).

  I walk away from teachers who put down...condemn...or say other teachers or fields of thought are "bad, wrong, shouldn't be." Like if they are against physicians or against natural medicine; if they are proscience, anti-"woo-woo" or all "woo-woo", anti-science; if they are against the spiritual practices of others; or if they don't teach to a holistic approach ...that emcompasses it all, is open to it all....then it is "Nope." They need to show me that they understand that "there are many paths to the same destination."

 When they fail my "Is what they say true?" question, I am out of there! That is a big one for me. How do I know they are telling the truth? How do I test what they say as truth?  Is there validation, research, evidence for what they deem as truth? Science helps with that one...do they offer scientific evidence? Do they seem honest and authentic? How do they describe the experience they had? Are there loop holes? Does it sound realistic and sincere?

What is their background?  I like to know how people got to the point they are teaching this stuff. If I find out that they were once 'struggling' actors who never got far (no offense to actors), hypnotists, performers of some kind, the kind of people seeking fame or fortune, people who once had large cult followings, or had any history of "conning" others...I will automatically step back look deeper into what they have to say about who they are. That is a warning for me of a possible cult leader potential. As soon as I suspect something akin to cult leadership, I stay away from that teacher and more than likely their teaching.

I love it when the potential teachers have a purely science background and from there, are now exploring  non materialistic concepts like "consciousness". What kind of ridicule and opposition did they meet in expressing themselves openly with these ideas they are now teaching? They must really believe them and be courageous professors  of the truth in such cases. If they have a "M.D.". behind their name , I am especially intrigued because those two initials encapsulate a very finite, materialstic mindset...one that is hard to get passed. If they get passed that, well, maybe what they have to say is more authentic. It will likely also contain science to some degree. I feel an authentic purpose in those who challenge the established scientific view. 

I have a hard time with others who promote the "Doctor" before their name though. I see that as a gimmick.  I often find that this "Doctor" that modern society would see as belonging to an allopathic practictioner, is actually used by those with a phD or who are practicing natural medicine...like naturopaths or chiropractors in the promotion of their teachings. Sure...they can all be called  doctors. I have no problem with them using that title....they go to school long enough.   It is just another concept, after all...but I do believe that title is often used to gain trust from a potential audience knowing how society still tends to revere allopathic medicine. It is a little promotional trick that bothers me. Come right out and tell the audience you are a chiropractor or naturopath...don't leave that specification muddy. 

It is funny that allopathic teachers often do not refer to themselves as doctors when they promote their teachings...look at Deepak Chopra, Gabor Mate, and David Hawkins...to name a few.  (Maybe, they leave that "Doctor" out because of the scrunity they would receive from their community?) The background of natural medicine, on the other hand, doesn't require such a leap of faith into teaching these things. These practitioners  have already been immersed into these ideas. They do not risk the scrunity of their communities.  And, sadly, they are probably already used to confronting the biases from conventional medicine.  I do not like it at all, either, when conventional medicine refers to such practices as "quakery" .  That would turn me off from a teacher pretty quickly.

What is motivating the potential teacher's teaching? Is it the Deeper Self or is it ego?  Is it a sincere desire to help humanity? Or is it a desire to help themselves? Are they doing this to get rich and famous? Are they charging a lot of money for their teaching material? How much money are they making? How many "Rolls Royces" do they own? How are they living? Not that anyone has to give away their work...no, no,no...but they need to make it accessible to all.  If only the rich and elite can afford your teachings, what about the rest of humanity you are professing to want to reach? Who is really benefitting from that? And of course...if you are blessed with abundance as an "added on"... enjoy it...but...continue to assist the less fortunate with your blessings...Is that being done? This teaching can not be a "business" in the mind of the teacher, for me to adhere to it.  It has to be an honest vocation with the intention of serving humanity...not little self.

I really watch for the ego in teachers when they are speaking. Are they all "I,I,I...me, me, me"? Are they preaching, "This is the way it is...listen to me"? or are they open to the possibility that they might not be right...that they don't know everything? If they have to be right and go on like they know everything... then there is a problem.  They won't keep my attention. I like to hear a questioning tone in the teacher's speech. I like it when a teacher embraces the questions of their students...embraces skeptical doubt and fills their answers with "maybe" rather than false certainty. The greatest teacher, I believe, is one that openly realizes that they do not know but they too are on the journey to understand. 

The most important thing is...how do they and what they have to say resonate inside me when I listen. How do I feel and respond at a visceral level when I am listening?  I mean, I am aware that some people have charsisma...a personality that is very attractive to other personalities and that can draw people in.  I try to look beyond their personality and see how that "essence",if you will, is impacting whatever this is that exists beyond my personality.  Do I hear and feel the truth of both their message and of them?  If I don't "feel it",  I won't listen.

No teacher out there is going to pass all of my testing criteria.  Nor, should they ever want to. Who the he%& am I to test anyone? There is no perfect teacher in human form because there is no perfect person. All of us will have some lingering form of ego attached to us until we die...I see some form of ego in all the people I listen to. I know there is a "human" that preceeds the "being" in all of us. So, I ask, "Is their essence more dominant than their ego? What is coming through when they are teaching? Where is that coming from...a place of superficiality and regurgitated knowledge? Or from a place of deeper wisdom? " 

I need to feel the "Ultimate Truth" working through that human being it is using. What they say and who they are need to resonate with this Truth already in this human being I call "me" for me to want to listen. 

You will know who embodies what resonates to me because I will often quote them or refer to their teachings here.  It is obvious that the tecahings of ancient Masters like Christ, the Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Yogananda, Patanjali and Vivekananda etc resonate with me.  Teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh,  Eckhart Tolle, Michael Singer, Pema Chodron, and Deepak Chopra and others to some degree have passed my testing enough for me to settle into their teachings. You will hear me reciting them or referring to them often here. 

How will this new potential teacher fit in to my listening practice? I don't know yet...They definitely do not pass all my testing criteria but I have a good feeling about them. I will read what they have written and I will keep exploring what they have to say and how they say it. 

I am open to all teachers and all teachings but they do have to pass the ego scraping test before I commit. :) This is, I hope, what you are doing as you read anything I have written or listen to anything I might have said. Even if I am not here to be your teacher, my goal is to point you in the direction of the only truely reliable teacher there is...that Truth within yourself. Be your own teacher, as I am ultimately mine.

The best teachers are those who tell you where to look, but don't tell you what to see.

Alexandra K. Trenfor

All is well.