Daniel M. Ingram:
most monks don't practice much
some don't ever practice
a few practice a moderate amount
fewer still practice a lot
of those, some are good at it
this is a broad set of generalizations
it can vary widely by the monastery and tradition
Actually, this raises the more general, and to me more generally important question:
What's the best way for a relative beginner to choose a teacher? If "being a monk" doesn't qualify (and I don't find it too surprising that that's the case -- although it would be nice if even they couldn't teach it, at least they could *do* it), then what *is*?
It's like a non-medic layperson choosing a physician or surgeon, in the absence of government certification (not that that's 100% reliable), or reliable public opinion, or even much of a clue on the part of the non-medic as to how the difference between medical competence and incompetence would even manifest itself.
Short of conjuring up the ghost of Mahasi Sayadaw, what's a newbie to do? And even there, I only pick his name because I've triangulated in on it from various sources I deem reasonably reliable because I've triangulated in on those in turn. But lots of people triangulated in on Joshu Saski and look where that (allegedly) led. Worse (perhaps) is the fact that many people may be working under teachers who are teaching "let's be nice to each other and the dolphins" and calling it Buddhism, thereby getting nowhere in particular.
I guess herein lies the fundamental attraction of dharma lineage and transmission, but that would be nice if it worked (or, at least, worked in such a way that newbies could see).
HVVH Robert "Holder Of The Great Torch Of Dharma-osity, Sage Of Seiza Benchiosis" McL (The 14th, Of The Line Of Mughlai Korma)