Common Misunderstandings.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Gem

That's pretty much the whole Buddhist religion right there teehee.

From my perspective Buddhism can provide a bridge between indigenous and non-indigenous ‘thought’. (I don’t know about Americas).
Shamanism or Shamanic cultures and Buddhism can be quite complementary.
I think I stayed with Trungpa’s teachings, because he was both Buddhist and Bon.

In the Central Desert we had collective meetings with Aboriginal Elders and Tibetan Lamas.
I would have been bitterly disappointed had the Lamas not recognized that what they were teaching was right in front of them i.e. had they not been able to enter “in that space” with the Elders, but as it turned out – there was recognition from both sides.
(Though the nondual ‘aspect’ was left unspoken – and when that ‘spatial aspect’ is there – there are no misunderstandings).

This recognition made the Lamas stress over and over again - the need to respect and learn from the local Elders.

The main contact person was “Uncle Bob”.

“Songman: The Story of an Aboriginal Elder of Uluru”
With great lucidity and simplicity, Randall explains the Aboriginal principles of belief, linking Aboriginal spirituality with other world religions such as Buddhism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zAh3irMYo

“In That Space” everyone gets a teaching from the Elder according to our/their level or situation need, and things come together like on “Sambhogakaya level” (?). There is no need to preach – which is a very crude way of communicating or transmitting teachings.

Trungpa:
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...azy+Wisdom.pdf

Here you communicate by creating incidents that seem to happen by themselves. Such incidents are seemingly blameless, but they do have an instigator somewhere. In other words, the Guru (Elder here) tunes himself in to the cosmic energy, or whatever you like to call it. Then if there is a need to create chaos, he directs his attention towards chaos. And quite appropriately, chaos presents itself, as if it happened by accident or mistake.

This is very Shamanic! And I have witnessed it with Elders here as well!

My first meeting with that Elder in Darwin – I got a teaching – but so did the 2 upset ones (whatever their upset about black and white relations had been that day).
With me ‘entering the circle’ - the Elder could demonstrate to them how to turn that kind of an upset around. So we all ended up in clear, mirror-still ‘water’ with each other. My preconceived apprehensions and their upset dissolved, because those were just surface mind stuff.

*

[sentient]

Since I did find the link – I’ll copy and paste the 3 ways of communicating the teachings.

THE EIGHTH ASPECT OF PADMASAMBHAVA is Dorje Troia, the final and absolute aspect of crazy wisdom. To discuss this eighth aspect of Padmasambhava, we have to have some background knowledge about [traditional] ways of communicating the teachings. The idea of lineage is associated with the transmission of the message of adhishthana, which means "energy" or, if you like, "grace." This is (transmitted like an electric current from the trikaya guru to sentient beings. In other words, crazy wisdom is a continual energy that flows and that, as it flows, regenerates itself. The only way to regenerate this energy is by radiating or communicating it, by putting it into practice or acting it out. It is unlike other energies, which, when you use them, move toward cessation or extinction. The energy of crazy wisdom regenerates itself through the process of our living it. As you live this energy, it regenerates itself; you don't live for death but you live for birth. Living is a constant birth process rather than a wearing·our process. The lineage has three styles of transmitting this energy.

The first is called the kangsaknyen-gyu. Here the energy of the lineage is transmitted by word of mouth using ideas and concepts. In some sense this is a crude or primitive method, a somewhat dualistic approach. However, in this case the dualistic approach is functional and worthwhile. If you sit cross-legged as if you were medicating, the chances are you might actually find yourself meditating after a while. This is like achieving sanity by pushing yourself to imitate it, by behaving as though you were sane already. In the same way, it is possible to use words, terms, images, and ideas-teaching orally or in writing-as though they were an absolutely perfect means of transmission. The procedure is to present an idea, then the refutation of (the opposite of (that idea, and then to associate the idea with an authentic scripture or teaching that has been given in the past. Believing in the sacredness of certain things on a primitive level is the first step in transmission. Traditionally, scriptures or holy books are not to be trodden upon, sat upon, or otherwise mistreated, because very powerful things are said in them. The idea is that by mistreating the books, you mistreat the messages they contain. This is a way of believing in some kind of entity, or energy, or force--in the living quality of something.

The second style of communicating, or teaching, is the rigdzin da-gyui. This is the method of crazy wisdom, but on the relative level, not the absolute level. Here you communicate by creating incidents that seem to happen by themselves. Such incidents are seemingly blameless, but they do have an instigator somewhere. In other words, the guru tunes himself in to the cosmic energy, or whatever you would like to call it. Then if there is a need to create chaos, he directs his attention toward chaos. And quite appropriately, chaos presents itself, as if it happened by accident or mistake.
Da in Tibetan means "symbol" or "sign. The sense of this is that the crazy-wisdom guru does not speak or teach on the ordinary level, but rather, he or she creates a symbol, or means. A symbol in this case is not like something that stands for something else, but it is something that presents the living quality of life and creates a message out of it.

The third one is called gyalwa gong-gyu. Gong gyu means "thought lineage" or "mind lineage." From the point of view of the thought lineage, even the method of creating situations is crude or primitive. Here a mutual understanding takes place that creates a general atmosphere--and the message is understood. If the guru of crazy wisdom is an authentic being, then the authentic communication happens, and the means of communication is neither words nor symbols. Rather, just by being, a sense of precision is communicated. Maybe it takes the form of waiting-for nothing. Maybe it takes pretending to meditate together, but not doing anything. For that matter, it might involve having a very casual relationship: discussing the weather and the flavour of tea; how to make curry, chop suey, or macrobiotic cuisine; or talking about history, or the history of the neighbours-whatever.

When we communicate through concepts and ideas – misunderstandings can abound.

But Reality does not have concepts in it. When it rains & the teacher points at the rain - the message is understood. Hence the second style beyond concepts is for a person to witness some truth for themselves.

The third style – I have often called “nondual – silent communication/communion” or “One Spirit” (as one Elder called it).
Nothing mysterious about it, it is so extraordinarily ordinary, yet it is magical.
No words needed - no misunderstandings, just direct knowing.

*

Nice thread, sky123, I'll peruse another day.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by sky123

Anatta, or “not-self”, is a frequently misunderstood Buddhist concept. Buddhism doesn’t deny you exist, deny you have a personality, or imply you shouldn’t have an “ego.” What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging.

Hello Sky,

The "self" that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging can only be Self, or Emptiness...so that is correct as I see it.

We are individuated consciousness, and like all consciousness we have always existed, though we only apprehend this larger reality from the point of our individuation.

Yet, we are never wholly separate unto ourselves, as we exist in interbeing with one another and all that is.

Also we are always changing, even whilst we learn to centre and deepen around the point of stillness, so that we can never be fixed and unchanging.

The idea that we as "self" exist outside of interbeing and continual change arising in each moment is illusory IMO. In other words, the idea that "self" is equivalent to Self, or Emptiness is illusory.

Rather than seeing self as simply what we are, which is an individuated aspect of of eternal consciousness, one which is ever changing. An individuated aspect of All that Is, which like all that is arises from or emanates from the emptiness in each moment (which seemingly paradoxically is also reconciled with our eternal consciousness beyond time and space).

But the idea that individuation of consciousness (and thus ownership and responsibility) is fleeting and limited to any one lifetime is also illusory IMO. Yet consciousness is eternal (outside of time)...only the body is temporal and truly "different" from one lifetime to the next. Regardless of the body, you are "you" in whatever time and place. And with awareness, "you" are faced with taking ownership for all you have done, whenever and wherever. For some, thus, I perceive the desire to flee from awareness and ownership to be the main driving undercurrent in their position on self.

To put these thoughts simply, no-self (emptiness) is not what you are. And it is in viewing self as no-self (separate and unchanging) that Ego (false self) arises and misdirects. However, it is in knowing no-self that we come to apprehend that we truly belong here. We come to apprehend we are of What Is (emptiness) and to align with our centre. It is in knowing no-self that we can recognise false self and centre in the self that we are.

Peace and blessings
7L

[Molearner]

Have not been present on this thread.....I attempted to catch up. My question is this: Have you on this thread or does Buddhism make a distinction between 'no-ego' and 'no-self'? I have read the Christian mystic, Bernadette Roberts, who had some familiarity with Buddhism and she made a clear distinction. 'Many can experience a 'no-ego" state but 'no-self' would be rare indeed. I think that these two terms might be mistakenly used as being synonymous.

[Molearner]

http://www.wisdom2be.com/files/categ...e-roberts.html

This will be explanatory and informative in reference to my above posting.
thanks...…..:)

Hi Molearner,

Due to your inquiry, I skimmed the article, and looked up some of her quotes.

This journey then, is nothing more, yet nothing less than a period of acclimating to a new way of seeing, a time of transition and revelation as it gradually comes upon "that" which remains when there is no self. this is not a journey for those who expect love and bliss, rather, it is for the hardy who have been tried by fire and have come to rest in a tough, immovable trust in "that" which lies beyond the known, beyond the self, beyond union and even beyond love and trust itself

Only God is love, and for this love to be fully realized self must step aside. And not only do we not need a self to love God, but for the same reason we do not need a mind to know him, for that in us which knows God, is God.


In some ways, all our experiences of God are beyond belief, because all conceptual beliefs pale when compared to the experiential reality.

I find great resonance in what she says above. Will comment on your inquiry next.

JL

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Sky,

The "self" that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging can only be Self, or Emptiness...so that is correct as I see it.

We are individuated consciousness, and like all consciousness we have always existed, though we only apprehend this larger reality from the point of our individuation.

Yet, we are never wholly separate unto ourselves, as we exist in interbeing with one another and all that is.

Also we are always changing, even whilst we learn to centre and deepen around the point of stillness, so that we can never be fixed and unchanging.

The idea that we as "self" exist outside of interbeing and continual change arising in each moment is illusory IMO. In other words, the idea that "self" is equivalent to Self, or Emptiness is illusory.

Rather than seeing self as simply what we are, which is an individuated aspect of of eternal consciousness, one which is ever changing. An individuated aspect of All that Is, which like all that is arises from or emanates from the emptiness in each moment (which seemingly paradoxically is also reconciled with our eternal consciousness beyond time and space).

But the idea that individuation of consciousness (and thus ownership and responsibility) is fleeting and limited to any one lifetime is also illusory IMO. Yet consciousness is eternal (outside of time)...only the body is temporal and truly "different" from one lifetime to the next. Regardless of the body, you are "you" in whatever time and place. And with awareness, "you" are faced with taking ownership for all you have done, whenever and wherever. For some, thus, I perceive the desire to flee from awareness and ownership to be the main driving undercurrent in their position on self.

To put these thoughts simply, no-self (emptiness) is not what you are. And it is in viewing self as no-self (separate and unchanging) that Ego (false self) arises and misdirects. However, it is in knowing no-self that we come to apprehend that we truly belong here. We come to apprehend we are of What Is (emptiness) and to align with our centre. It is in knowing no-self that we can recognise false self and centre in the self that we are.

Peace and blessings
7L

With all due respect, 7Luminaries, Buddhism is a contemplative, meditative religion - it's not one where you come with your beliefs and theories first and overlay them.

It's one where you put aside your knowings and beliefs for the willingness to find the Truth of the Buddha for oneself.

Just saying,

JL

Originally Posted by Molearner

http://www.wisdom2be.com/files/categ...e-roberts.html

This will be explanatory and informative in reference to my above posting.
thanks...…..:)

Not in reference to this article, which I found a little technical (I find that people use words in many different ways) - but in researching her a little more, I find what she says very believable.

Note that her use of words might not always be the same as how Buddhist schools use it.

When I read however, I try to move past the words to the "sense" of what someone is pointing to.

She talks of a state which is beyond the dropping of ego. In reality, personality and such is what we use to interface, manifest in this reality.

She speaks of something more...where self is not there. I believe her.

JL

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by janielee

Not in reference to this article, ....

Christianity has the "selfless" thing down pretty good. All truth in religion points to the same thing, but Western readers of Eastern philosophies often miss the "selfless" part and just use the teachings to be bigger egos....

I will meditate and practice and achieve great things!

Well help others?

Ummmm yea yea eventually I get this compassion stuff......

ok.......

It's really helpful to read many religions to get a better idea where they are all pointing.

Christianity teaches the selfless angle good.
Buddhism teaches awareness without mental phenomena good.

Love is natural outcome of all paths properly practiced and understood.