Anattā (no self)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

Self discipline, responsibility and respect all tie into the practice, so for me, that’s fair and reasonable.

Some just do a fly by night. I see a cushion empty in the hall, so I go to find them in their room and find all their bags and stuff are gone. The place is strict and the meditation is hard, so not everyone can bear it. A lot goes on that the mediators don't know about. I've had people turn up in the middle of the night to tell me a meditator's family member died. I have to go rouse the teacher and tactfully get the meditator ready to leave. I had 50 people in my care, so you can imagine all kinds of things were going on... some people just start freaking out because they are not in contact with their business for so long and scared their livelihood is going to hell, but if they use a phone to check in, they would have to leave. I have called people's businesses and loved ones on their behalf just to get a reassuring message across... not really meant to do that, but I have been known to "bend the rules" teehee.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

Some just do a fly by night. I see a cushion empty in the hall, so I go to find them in their room and find all their bags and stuff are gone. The place is strict and the meditation is hard, so not everyone can bear it. A lot goes on that the mediators don't know about. I've had people turn up in the middle of the night to tell me a meditator's family member died. I have to go rouse the teacher and tactfully get the meditator ready to leave. I had 50 people in my care, so you can imagine all kinds of things were going on... some people just start freaking out because they are not in contact with their business for so long and scared their livelihood is going to hell, but if they use a phone to check in, they would have to leave. I have called people's businesses and loved ones on their behalf just to get a reassuring message across... not really meant to do that, but I have been known to "bend the rules" teehee.

Balance tends to find itself even in strict environments.

In some instances like your sharing you can understand why one bends the rules..

A friends son, did the 14 day silent retreat and it was either five or eight hr meditation days. He made it to day 11 and then pulled out. He had never done one before so I thought he did well.

[Rain95]

Q; Was Buddha a teacher?

A; No. He did not have the desire to teach or not to teach. He spent seven weeks sitting under the shade of a tree and walking along the bank of a river. Then someone just happened along and he began to speak. One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself . That is what is called "Buddha activity." Chogyam Trungpa

Originally Posted by sky123

I was highly amused at the thought of Buddha not being a Teacher, I still am....

But yes if you were there and laughed at Chogyam Trungpa's answer to his face you would be asked to leave. That is very disrespectful. The point Chogyam Trungpa was making was two-fold. #1 The word "teacher" refers to a role the listener creates, not what the speaker has or is. Buddha expressed what he was experiencing as now reality, he was not expressing opinion or belief or stored conceptual knowledge from memory. The word "teacher" normally refers to one passing on ones stored conceptual knowledge so to refer to Buddha as a "teacher" would be assuming this is what he was or was doing. #2. The role or label of "teacher" also assumes intent, the desire to teach, to give others the conceptual knowledge you carry. Buddha had no desire. So again, the word "teacher" does not accurately describe what he was or was doing.

As Chogyam Trungpa said, "One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself " Now some person fully in ego can come along and project their state of being and consciousnesses onto Buddha, and assume oh he is teaching like me, he is sharing what he is carrying around as knowledge. Buddha did not bring conceptual carried knowledge into his experience of now. That's why when Buddha was asked, "Are you a God or a man?" Buddha's answer was "I am awake." Descriptions, conceptual interpretation was meaningless to him. So as Chogyam Trungpa said, Buddha was not a teacher. He was not "something." He was not a role. He was himself. But yea we can make him into anything we like, call him a teacher, but that is what we make him to be, what he is to us, not what he was.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

No, it was about you mocking the teacher Rain was quoting, saying that teacher isn't practicing Buddhism, and then saying the teacher would be egotistical for kicking someone like that out. That's not twisting anything. That's straightening it out.

Yes here are the quotes based on this.: "I doubt Chogyam Trungpa would allow such people to be in his community or in his presence."

Originally Posted by sky123

Then he's not practicing Buddhism.

Originally Posted by sky123

So his ego must be taking charge and he's not practicing Buddhism.

Yes he is practicing Buddhism. No his ego is not taking charge. Disrespect of Masters is not allowed in communities for good reasons.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

But yes if you were there and laughed at Chogyam Trungpa's answer to his face you would be asked to leave. That is very disrespectful. The point Chogyam Trungpa was making was two-fold. #1 The word "teacher" refers to a role the listener creates, not what the speaker has or is. Buddha expressed what he was experiencing as now reality, he was not expressing opinion or belief or stored conceptual knowledge from memory. The word "teacher" normally refers to one passing on ones stored conceptual knowledge so to refer to Buddha as a "teacher" would be assuming this is what he was or was doing. #2. The role or label of "teacher" also assumes intent, the desire to teach, to give others the conceptual knowledge you carry. Buddha had no desire. So again, the word "teacher" does not accurately describe what he was or was doing.

As Chogyam Trungpa said, "One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself " Now some person fully in ego can come along and project their state of being and consciousnesses onto Buddha, and assume oh he is teaching like me, he is sharing what he is carrying around as knowledge. Buddha did not bring conceptual carried knowledge into his experience of now. That's why when Buddha was asked, "Are you a God or a man?" Buddha's answer was "I am awake." Descriptions, conceptual interpretation was meaningless to him. So as Chogyam Trungpa said, Buddha was not a teacher. He was not "something." He was not a role. He was himself. But yea we can make him into anything we like, call him a teacher, but that is what we make him to be, what he is to us, not what he was.

Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism
By Chogyam Thrungpa.



Question:

After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, was there some trace of ego left in him so that he could carry on his teachings?

Answer:

The teaching just happened. He did not have the desire to teach or not to teach. He spent seven weeks sitting under the shade of a tree and walking along the bank of a river. Then someone just happened along and he began to speak. One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself and teaching happens. That is what is called "Buddha activity.".

Slightly different to your version Rain





Q; Was Buddha a teacher?

A; No. He did not have the desire to teach or not to teach. He spent seven weeks sitting under the shade of a tree and walking along the bank of a river. Then someone just happened along and he began to speak. One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself . That is what is called "Buddha activity." Chogyam Trungpa.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

but if they use a phone to check in, they would have to leave.

That's pretty strict but then in the community I lived in, we were not allowed to have phones lol. That solves that problem. Living in a very strict environment, where you are not allowed to talk, where your every moment and activity is dictated by rules and schedules, where you have no freedom at all, one finds freedom. This is how I thought of it once. The mind can resist what is, desire something else, and thus create conflict, so that's where I saw the freedom, in liberation from the mind. That which creates the conflict. So even in an environment where one had no freedom, one could be inwardly free.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by janielee

You've misquoted me -

No that was a statement about what you posted. This was what you posted. A direct quote.

Originally Posted by janielee

I also know that you have a thing about transcending ego but what those ancient masters don't tell you is that the ones that have successfully achieved an ego-less state have had to be spoon fed.

The next sentence was something about such ego-less persons wearing "diapers" you used some UK word I think... "diapees?" Something like that.

So why do you believe the ego-less state is like being a vegetable?

Isn't being ego-less part of Buddhism's teachings?

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism
By Chogyam Thrungpa.
The teaching just happened. He did not have the desire to teach or not to teach.

We are still on this? lol Maybe this will put it to rest.

Is everyone who speaks while walking around a college campus a teacher there?
Obviously no.

Say I am sitting in the college library. You walk up and ask me how to do a math problem.
I show you how.

Did I teach?
Obviously yes.
Am I a teacher at the college?
Obviously no.

Teacher refers to an action and a role. Two different things.
There is the meaning simplified for those who don't understand non-conceptual living and being.

The deeper meaning is about state of being from which conceptual language is used to express.
It's always the same flaw, dualism introduced into conceptualization of some-thing.
The word "teacher" as a role implies dualism - the one, and that which they hold to pass on.
There is no dualism in one who is enlightened. Nothing is held.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Is everyone who speaks while walking around a college campus a teacher there?

'Q. Was Buddha a teacher?

A. No. He did not have the desire to teach or not to teach. He spent seven weeks sitting under the shade of a tree and walking along the bank of a river. Then someone just happened along and he began to speak. One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself . That is what is called "Buddha activity." Chogyam Trungpa.'


Can you post a link please where he was asked ' Was Buddha a Teacher ' and he answered ' No ' as you have stated....

[JosephineB]

We are student and teacher of everyone we meet ;-)