Superior Teachers verses Inferior teachers

[Jhanananda]

How do we know the difference between superior teachers (maha-ácariya) verses inferior teachers (omaka-ácariya)?

I find in my 40-year contemplative life that it is very important to unpack our belief systems, especially those of mainstream religion. 

Typical of the inferior teachers (omaka-ácariya) is either a complete disregard for the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala), or complete misunderstanding of what they are.  Typical in Buddhism is the inferior teachers (omaka-ácariya) tend to believe that the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) are nothing more than practices or techniques.  A typical representation of this inferior understanding of the dhamma is a belief that insight (vipassana) is one meditation technique, and the religious experience (jhana) is another. Whereas, the superior teachers (maha-ácariya) understands that both Jhana and Vipassana are "superior fruit of attainment" (maha-phala), as described in DN-2.

Any Buddhist teacher who does not recognize or value the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) is at best an introductory teacher, or inferior teachers (omaka-ácariya). Therefore, if anyone wishes superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala), then that person must seek out a superior teacher (maha-acharya). Maligning a superior teacher (maha-acharya) only proves one to be a fool.

[Alexander]

I was thinking something related to this yesterday. How several people could be arahants, but (1) some could be able to teach, and (2) some not able to teach. What do you think of arahants who have been taught (presumably by other arahants) arahantship, but then find themselves unable to teach others?

[Michel]

I was thinking something related to this yesterday. How several people could be arahants, but (1) some could be able to teach, and (2) some not able to teach. What do you think of arahants who have been taught (presumably by other arahants) arahantship, but then find themselves unable to teach others?

I imagine that an arahant has developed compassion to a high degree and cares deeply for the wellbeing of others. If they are not able to teach, then would they be of any use to anyone? But if they have great compassion, I think that they would want to learn the skills required to teach others. They would probably want to undergo an education process in order to be an effective teacher by taking on rebirth throughout many lives, if necessary. But what if they're just plain stupid? Are there stupid arahants? Could they somehow develop the intelligence required over many rebirths?

[Jhanananda]

What do you think of arahants who have been taught (presumably by other arahants) arahantship, but then find themselves unable to teach others?

It is reasonable that not all enlightened ones can teach; however, an aspect of enlightenment is to want to help others gain the same bliss, joy and ecstasy.

But what if they're just plain stupid? Are there stupid arahants? Could they somehow develop the intelligence required over many rebirths?

These are good questions.  There are several premises that I have developed over time:

1) Anyone can become enlightened.
2) It does not take superior intelligence to become enlightened.
3) However, those who become enlightened generally have superior intelligence, because to become enlightened requires unpacking one's belief systems, and that requires a high degree of critical thinking, and critical thinking is a characteristic of superior intelligence.

[Michel]

1) Anyone can become enlightened.
2) It does not take superior intelligence to become enlightened.
3) However, those who become enlightened generally have superior intelligence, because to become enlightened requires unpacking one's belief systems, and that requires a high degree of critical thinking, and critical thinking is a characteristic of superior intelligence.,

If it requires a high degree of critical thinking to become enlightened, then how can one who is unintelligent become enlightened? Maybe if they are given proper instruction from one who is enlightened, where it's like following the recipe for baking a cake, they can attain enlightenment; or, the enlightened individual unpacks the belief system for the unintelligent person?

[Jhanananda]

If it requires a high degree of critical thinking to become enlightened, then how can one who is unintelligent become enlightened?

One should not assume one is not sufficiently intelligent to become enlightened, because the world is fully of, and run by, raving lunatics, who are hopelessly addicted and profoundly stupid, so one cannot believe anything the herd says about one.  If one realizes that, and/or realizes that the only true effort in life is to become enlightened, then one most likely has the required level of rational thinking, intelligence and lack of addiction to become enlightened.

Maybe if they are given proper instruction from one who is enlightened, where it's like following the recipe for baking a cake, they can attain enlightenment; or, the enlightened individual unpacks the belief system for the unintelligent person?

Both of these seem like reasonable conclusions.