Should Masters adapt to their Disciples ?

Humans are a highly adaptable specie with a great ability to learn and develop expertise. Still, body types generally condition our physical abilities. 

Judokas know it is easier to throw someone taller than you and to sweep someone shorter. This is simply due to the relative position of their centers of gravity. 

O Soto Gari

So during his first sparring matches a short guy will generally put emphasis on throws, and a tall one on sweeps. With years of diligent practice, abilities change, expertise comes and a tall fighter might develop a great way to throw an shorter opponent, or a shorter guy might become excellent at sweeping a giant. 

However, at the beginning, in order to develop self confidence in students, a teacher should adapt his teachings according to their physical abilities and be able to teach both types of techniques, independently from his own preference and body type.

The same applies to spiritual practice. Dharma gates are boundless, we vowed to enter them. We should be able to teach a variety of practices. You may liken the Buddhist path to the ascension of a mountain. On your way to the top, several trail of various difficulty are available.  Zen in essence is about getting off those trails to directly climb to the top. Not everyone can do this. Some people will fall off the rocks, some will get lost on their way. 

Gravity is not just a theory...

I believe a practice leader should know how to teach different path to different disciples at different stages of progress. Before teaching them how to climb rocks, lets teach them how to walk the trail. The Buddha first talked about the 3 Noble Truths : Dukkha, Anicca, Anatta. Emptiness came much later... We should keep this in mind.

What are your thoughts ?

Clarification about the 'Self'

All forms of Buddhism teach that all dharma or phenomena have 3 universal characteristics :

All phenomena are Impermanent	The teaching of ANICCA
All phenomena are Unsatisfactory	The teaching of DUKKHA
All phenomena are Not-Self	The teaching of ANATTA

The teachings of Anicca and Dukkha are common to all religious or philosopHical traditions, but the teaching of Anatta is unique to Buddhism.

According to Anatta there is nothing that can be identified as 'self', all the things that we take to be ourself, to be I and mine, are really 'not-self'.

Buddhism holds that these notions are deceptive delusions that lead us into conflicts and suffering. To stop this suffering we have to realize the nature of all phenomena. This is achieved by intellectual understanding and through insight.

Because almost all of our thoughts and activities are centred around the idea of "I", "mine" and "myself" Anatta is the deepest and the most difficult of the 3 characteristics to realize. To grasp its exact meaning we have to clarify what it actually does and does not deny. 'Anatta' meaning literally 'not-self', what really is this 'self' denied by it ?

The word "self" can be used in three senses :

• (a) A reflexive sense, as when when we speak of "myself", "yourself", "oneself". (French “moi-meme”, “toi-meme”, “soi-meme”). Buddhism accepts such use of the word "Self". You have to train yourself, one must purify oneself, you have to make the effort yourself and so on.

• (b) "Self” as one's own person, the compound of body and mind or psycho-physical personality. Here the word 'self' is used to refer easily and economically to what really is a complex process. Buddhism accepts such use of the word "Self".

• (c) A substantial and lasting ego entity, core of the compound of body and mind. This idea of a "Self" is categorically rejected by the teaching of Anatta, for it is this assumption that draws us into suffering.