Anattā (no self)

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

' Buddha didn't teach '.....

Would you laugh at Chogyam Trungpa as well?

Here he is saying the same thing I did....

Q; Did Buddha Teach?

A; No. 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."

It's funny finding Chogyam Trungpa saying the same things I do as I have never studied him or read his teachings until recently when you mentioned him on these forums as someone you consider a great teacher. But truth is truth and many teachers present it. My main teachers were Krishnamurti, and later Mooji and others who didn't really teach me anything new, just reinforced what I already knew. It's funny how some people only listen to and respect people they build up in their minds as authorities. I doubt people would go to Chogyam Trungpa's community and say he is wrong and deluded to his face, laugh out loud in his face as the emoji was intended to convey...but then they do say such things to his teachings, if they come out through someone else's hand...

I doubt Chogyam Trungpa would allow such people to be in his community or in his presence. But then I assume these people would behave differently there than they do online.

A small section of my original post you paraphrased as a joke:

Buddha did not teach, he described what he was, what he was experiencing, and listeners did not get what he was, what he was experiencing, they got a description of it. It is up to the listeners to move from that to the experience, to become that thing Buddha was. To find and be what the description pointed to, the actual moment to moment living of this new way to be and see. What is every word posted here? It is manufactured reality, manufactured content. It is drawing on a white board, pen to paper, chalk on the sidewalk. It is creating something out of nothing, and what is the relationship between one mesmerized by their created content and one who is living free of such things? There is none.

Buddha never wrote down teachings. There's a reason he did not. He did not entertain thoughts or thinking. He expressed what he was in the moment, the now, he did not express thoughts, or beliefs as this was no longer what he was. He described using conceptual language as it appeared to his intellect in the present moment to point to what was known by him. He expressed what was real, conceptually.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

And what happens when there are no more thoughts and complaints that arise?

Ajahn Amaro is talking to help retreat-ants - relate to where they are etc. All teachers have been where they have been, that is why a guide is useful for many.

JL

He was describing his experience of a retreat he did after 10 years as a monk. The new meditators could relate because they have similar experiences, and I bet the adepts were like, yea - it's like that.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Would you laugh at Chogyam Trungpa as well?

Here he is saying the same thing I did....

Q; Did Buddha Teach?

A; No. 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."

It's funny finding Chogyam Trungpa saying the same things I do as I have never studied him or read his teachings until recently when you mentioned him on these forums as someone you consider a great teacher. But truth is truth and many teachers present it. My main teachers were Krishnamurti, and later Mooji and others who didn't really teach me anything new, just reinforced what I already knew. It's funny how some people only listen to and respect people they build up in their minds as authorities. I doubt people would go to Chogyam Trungpa's community and say he is wrong and deluded to his face, laugh out loud in his face as the emoji was intended to convey...but then they do say such things to his teachings, if they come out through someone else's hand...

I doubt Chogyam Trungpa would allow such people to be in his community or in his presence. But then I assume these people would behave differently there than they do online.

A small section of my original post you paraphrased as a joke:

Buddha did not teach, he described what he was, what he was experiencing, and listeners did not get what he was, what he was experiencing, they got a description of it. It is up to the listeners to move from that to the experience, to become that thing Buddha was. To find and be what the description pointed to, the actual moment to moment living of this new way to be and see. What is every word posted here? It is manufactured reality, manufactured content. It is drawing on a white board, pen to paper, chalk on the sidewalk. It is creating something out of nothing, and what is the relationship between one mesmerized by their created content and one who is living free of such things? There is none.

Buddha never wrote down teachings. There's a reason he did not. He did not entertain thoughts or thinking. He expressed what he was in the moment, the now, he did not express thoughts, or beliefs as this was no longer what he was. He described using conceptual language as it appeared to his intellect in the present moment to point to what was known by him. He expressed what was real, conceptually.

I don't think people are criticising Trungpa, per se, but how people cherry pick discourse to validate their own narratives more generally. For example, Jonesboy can find a thousand words on 'energy', I can find 2000 on 'equanimity', and anyone can find whatever floats their boat online. Using authority as validation is inane. Surely discerning folk can think for themselves, and see for themselves that 'coz a teacher said so' is mindless dogma.


Surely it is sufficient for you to say as you see it and give a bit of explanation, and others can discern the merit on if it makes sense or not. If it makes no sense, people should point out the contradiction therein. You find that many people are limited in capability because they give their power of discernment over to the authority of a teacher, and in so doing, find validation for a particular bias that have by typing the appropriate key words into google (and google goes on to remember individual preferences).



The last thing anyone really wants to do is be aware of the truth of what they are actually doing moment to moment, continuously. Not trying to become an imaginary thing, imitate a teacher, act like the imaginary Buddha, but just to know what's true of myself as I am now.

Originally Posted by Rain95

lol I never said that. Quote or it didn't happen!

Originally Posted by Rain95

I disagree with that. We already are what Buddha was and is. We (conspicuousness/energy merged with a human body) are all the same thing.

Originally Posted by Rain95

I don't mind if that is what you believe. But it is not what I believe.
I believe we are what Buddha is, and Buddha is what we are.

Some people will never drop "becoming," thus only understand that path.

Originally Posted by Rain95

Everyone is already a free, unencumbered, spiritually superior being with insights that go beyond the physical mind. Every seed is already a full grown oak tree which provides shelter to everyone else. That is a given. Then the question is, why are you experiencing something else? Because you are not aware of what you are.

Rain95, I don't think you should ask people keep up with your own quotes and thoughts, IMO, especially when they were just a day or two ago. In future, I suggest you do your own homework

JL

Originally Posted by Rain95

For somebody in "becoming mind" which is just "spiritual materialism" (to quote some Buddhist teachers) egotism or living in conceptual delusion in other words, giving up such egotistic practice and self delusions would be progress. So for these ego ruled types, giving up their egotistic practice would be great progress.

Hi Dear Rain,

Ahh the old ego mind trick. If you have a thought contrary to yours, it's someone's ego. If it's Rain's ideas and thoughts, it's Buddhahood.

I tried to explain it to you already, Rain, what you quote is not extraordinary or out of this world or not understood. It is understood - do you understand?

You quoting Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche is not a problem - nor is it a green light. You take some of his words and remove his fulsome teaching context. Same as Bodhidharma. Teachers do often talk in a certain way dependent on the students and context - in my opinion, you can't "pick and choose" the words or phrases you like and ignore or even worse, deny them. e.g. you saying Buddha never taught is probably one of the most harmful things - not only because it is patently untrue, but because it shows that you are more invested in being right than being open to the truth.

Buddha did teach, and the Buddhist teachers of today still do; it's just the way it is. It's a long standing thing in this school.

Like I said to others on here, google is your friend when you want to find selective words e.g. "energy" or "magic" and "Buddhism". It doesn't mean it's the whole, or even necessarily fulsome enough to be representative, in my view.

As Shania Twain might say "That don't impress me much"!

On a practice level, practice is not delusion or egoistic. All Buddhas practiced and still do - so do the levels outlined in Theravada - so do the Bodhisattvas.

There is not one thing in Buddhism that is taught that is not a way of life - a practice - an art form and a happiness, at the end of the day.

As to selfishness and "egoistic" that's not for you to tell me and others who and what I am.

Buddhism is a practice of the self - your- self. So in that, as you let go of selfishness, happiness will naturally arise. It takes practice, but it does what it says on the can, in my opinion.

JL

PS You are trying to say - when effort is made under the realm of delusion and ignorance, it is not yet the road to peace. Yet very often (and some practitioners here might have such experience) it is through the practice - even when one is still mired in pure ignorance - that breakthroughs happen.

Some Roshi or other said "Without ego nothing gets done" Buddhism is not about denying the self, it's about realization of the true self.

Reading the books, the ideas that appeal and one might even intuitively connect to, is one thing, living it is another. And this is where (voila back to the broken record) practice comes in, true teachers (if one is lucky to find) come in, guides and Sanghas come in, retreats come in, true genuine and sustained meditation practice comes in.

Without such things, well, enough said really.

JL

Originally Posted by Rain95

My main teachers were Krishnamurti, and later Mooji and others who didn't really teach me anything new, just reinforced what I already knew.

I see how you think.

Originally Posted by Rain95

It's funny how some people only listen to and respect people they build up in their minds as authorities. I doubt people would go to Chogyam Trungpa's community and say he is wrong and deluded to his face, laugh out loud in his face as the emoji was intended to convey...but then they do say such things to his teachings, if they come out through someone else's hand...

Not true - context matters. Respect, as JustBe aptly said, is not demanded - it is earned. You've accurately cobbled together a few philosophies (such as Krishnamurti - truth is a pathless path; religions are not needed; don't do anything) and some selective quotes of Zen teachers and now Trungpa Rinpoche - it doesn't show any real understanding - because Buddhism is not just intellectual, dear Rain.

Originally Posted by Rain95

I doubt Chogyam Trungpa would allow such people to be in his community or in his presence.

I wouldn't assume to understand how Buddhist teachers operate if I was you.

Originally Posted by Rain95

Buddha never wrote down teachings. There's a reason he did not. He did not entertain thoughts or thinking. He expressed what he was in the moment, the now, he did not express thoughts, or beliefs as this was no longer what he was. He described using conceptual language as it appeared to his intellect in the present moment to point to what was known by him. He expressed what was real, conceptually.

You are not Buddha, you were not there; and I don't know about you, but any teacher I've been around has always had their teachings transcribed by others.

As to expression, he expressed a lot. Look them up -they're called Sutras and teachings. He taught ceaselessly with words and directives and exhortations to practice and work hard until his death. His first teaching was the Four Noble Truths - the road to genuine liberation.

JL

Originally Posted by Gem

He was describing his experience of a retreat he did after 10 years as a monk. The new meditators could relate because they have similar experiences, and I bet the adepts were like, yea - it's like that.

I'll go re-watch some of it - I'm a terrible skimmer at times.

Thanks.

[Rain95]

Buddhism... it's about realization of the true self.

We are the true self, just covered with dust. So we reflect the dust and not the self.

...don't do anything...

It is about being aware of what is. It is a being, not a doing.
Doing requires duality, delusion/ego to operate.

According to the Buddhist tradition, the spiritual path is the uncovering the awakened state of mind. So it is a matter of burning out the confusions which obstruct it. Enlightenment is permanent because we have not produced it; we have merely discovered what was always here. We clear away the confusion of ego, one discovers a different way of being.

"But," we might ask, "if our real condition is an awakened state, why are we so busy trying to avoid becoming aware of it?" It is because we have become so absorbed in our confused view of the world, that we consider it real, the only possible world. This struggle to maintain the sense of a solid, continuous self is the action of ego.

Ego is able to convert everything to its own use, even spirituality. For example, if you have learned of a particularly beneficial meditation technique of spiritual practice, ego is imitating the practice of the meditative way of life. When we have learned all the tricks and answers of the spiritual game, we automatically try to imitate spirituality, since real involvement would require the complete elimination of ego, and actually the last thing we want to do is to give up the ego completely.

Chogyam Trungpa

No ego, no person, no path, just being here now empty, without desiring anything, with no belief, no opinion, no interpretation, selfless, nothing to seek or become, nothing to want to be, then without all that, one is filled with something else, peace, quiet, wonder, expansiveness, liberation, freedom, compassion, unconditional love without judgement or aversion or resistance. One can't be selfless while thinking about themselves.

The more we generate thoughts, the busier we are mentally and the more convinced we are of our existence. CT

One loses themselves and thus finds themself.

In true meditation there is no ambition. CT

One wants and seeks and desires nothing.
Nothing is there to invent such things.

There is no need to struggle to be free; the absence of struggle is in itself freedom. CT

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by janielee

Respect...- it is earned.

I'd say to treat all with kindness and respect. Love everyone unconditionally.
That's the ideal anyway. Treat others how you wish to be treated.

Some version of the golden rule is in all religions...

Buddhism: 560 BC, From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."

Confucianism: 557 BC, From the Analects 15:23- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

Respect.... it is freely given!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

I see how you think.



Not true - context matters. Respect, as JustBe aptly said, is not demanded - it is earned. You've accurately cobbled together a few philosophies (such as Krishnamurti - truth is a pathless path; religions are not needed; don't do anything) and some selective quotes of Zen teachers and now Trungpa Rinpoche - it doesn't show any real understanding - because Buddhism is not just intellectual, dear Rain.



I wouldn't assume to understand how Buddhist teachers operate if I was you.



You are not Buddha, you were not there; and I don't know about you, but any teacher I've been around has always had their teachings transcribed by others.

As to expression, he expressed a lot. Look them up -they're called Sutras and teachings. He taught ceaselessly with words and directives and exhortations to practice and work hard until his death. His first teaching was the Four Noble Truths - the road to genuine liberation.

JL

Actually, J krishnamurti advocates ardent awareness and says meditation requires your complete attention.