Buddha Did Not Know

[rideforever]

Buddha was an expert in many systems of meditations and jhanas and so on.  He studied hard and long.   But it didn't work.

One day he sat under a tree, and plop Enlightenment.

 

So .... the poor guy, he feels really good, wants to share it with everyone, and he reveals all to his Old Friends.   And the Old Friends say :

OF : "Siddhartha that's really cool man, so how did you do it ?"

B : "Haven't the foggiest mate.    I went through university did all the practices attained all the jhanas, smoked behind the bike sheds, everything - I did everything.   And it still didn't work.   Then one day I had absolutely had it, sat down under this stupid tree and plop.  Realisation".
 

OF : "Wow man far out, you really should teach !!!"

B : "Teach !   What the f*** am I going to teach ?   Sitting under a tree ?"

OF : "No common man, nobody is going to listen to you if you teach tree sitting .... make it sound good, at some numbers, 8 is a good number 8 something, a 4 something else.   People love this shit. .... and you know what just being next to you feels funky, maybe something will happen."

 

B : "Yeah, hmm, I don't know doesn't seem very honest.    But I suppose I could teach you some of the stuff I learnt in the past that didn't really work.   I don't know maybe it worked a bit, who knows."

OF : "Okay Siddhartha, you do that, and I will be your first student.   But just make sure you have lots of number 8, 4, 5 is quite good as well.  4 shalt though not count !!!!"

 

 

[Stosh]

That is humorous and creative but,, I think its taught that the extreme deprivation and its self destructive distracting aspect had become the main obstacle to his progress. 

Trying to crush his illusions as an act of violence preserved the dualistic perception of himself. He had to accept and embrace his totality. The focus on compassion is an extention of this acceptance. These aspects of his path are significant to those who would follow his example. .....Imo... but I am mot buddhist. 

[Fa Xin]

Wonder if all the training he did set him up for that moment.  Maybe it was not for nothing. I don't know, either.

[Stosh]

I would think so. If his fate was to walk a long ways , he just would have to take all them steps.. though I certainly couldnt say what anyone elses fate would be,  If he taught,,, then he mustve thought he could potentially make it easier for others. 

[Fa Xin]

And most "figuring it out" requires you to try the 9,999 other ways it DIDN'T work before you find the way it did.

 

Buddha was a trailblazer in that regard.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Fa Xin

[steve]

"If I hadn't done what I didn't need to do, I wouldn't know I didn't need to do it."

~ Peter Fenner

 

For some, a lifetime of practice does not bring realization.

For others, it may happen spontaneously in an instant. 

It happened like that to a friend of mine at age 8...

Imagine how intense that was for an 8 year old!

 

I don't think there is a way to do it, I think it is a blessing.

[oak]

Funny  you've used some very meaningful symbols, including numbers, in the composition of your annedocte. You should look up for the same symbols next time you're doing your biblical studies. Maybe you learn something.

[rideforever]

4 hours ago, oak said:

Funny  you've used some very meaningful symbols, including numbers, in the composition of your annedocte. You should look up for the same symbols next time you're doing your biblical studies. Maybe you learn something.

Hey I am sincerely interested, if you would like to say more.

[rideforever]

And Buddha wasn't the only one.
Just look at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Jaggi Vasudev who like many are prescribing a cut down pranayama to people which they know damn well will not awaken the world.
Eckhart Tolle spend several years in London following Barry Long and sleeping on park benches, but started his journey as a young boy reading Bo Yin Ra books and I believe his dad died or some big shock.
Or Osho who's beloved maternal grandfather passed away when he was young, leading him to do Sadhanas where he felt could not longer live.

 

And look at what they teach.

They do not teach the path that they took, because their own path was messy and impossible to really comprehend.

Or J Krishnamurti who taught for 40 years after which he said nobody understood him.

I remember Astavakra says that the state of realisation is very rare even for monks.

 

Buddhism has got many good ideas directions and tools, but ... .... like the 8 Limbs of Yoga .... they do not have any system of techniques because they don't really know what is happening.    Their collection of tools does seem beneficial but uncertainty surrounds it.   Certainly they do not have any step by step path.

 

One of the biggest problems is the belief that there is no self, yet you should still work towards a goal.   Why ?   It's dumb logic.

 

People are afraid to use the ordinary logic of a carpenter on the path.   They all aspire to throwing common sense away and feeling some magic.   Wrong.   Wrong approach.

 

Carpenter is honest, he has a job, a plan, and he acts and sees the result.    This is the correct approach.   Any theory is directly linked to action and realisation.

 

If you sit in a Buddhist centre and somebody begins with the 4 Noble Truths, "There is suffering ..."

STOP.  Stop right there.   Why do you begin like this ?   Are you depressed ?    
Although you might continue to study Buddhism you must realise that they begin in a particular polarised direction that has no justification.

 

Your own ordinary logic reasoning should be applied.   Ask questions, often very obvious questions.

 

Once in a Vipassana retreat I was interviewed at the front by the teacher, with 150 students sitting in the room, I said to the teacher : "why shouldn't I think whilst in meditation".    He said "that is the technique so just do it".
I told him that I would have to think about it.

I left the retreat later that day.

Of course there are times of just following doing and trusting, but don't go too far.

Humans are quite desperate to help each other, but their intelligence sensitive is not that high - this leads to the kind of teaching environments like Buddhsim.

 

There is some value in studying Buddhist (or any) theoretical acadaemia because your intelligence might grow in general.   However if what you study is not related to reality it is like a carpenter studying somebody's wild ideas about carpentry, rather than studying theory and applying it immediately and seeing it in practice.   acadaemia must be directly linked to reality, otherwise it is a kind of masturbation of the head leading to loss of intelligence.

[rex]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

Buddhism has got many good ideas directions and tools, but ... .... like the 8 Limbs of Yoga .... they do not have any system of techniques because they don't really know what is happening.    Their collection of tools does seem beneficial but uncertainty surrounds it.   Certainly they do not have any step by step path.

Er ... what  buddhism are you talking about? Have you ever heard of the Lamrim,  or the preliminary, generation and completion stages, the Lamdre? Mahamudra or Dzogchen even?

Edited August 4, 2018 by rex
Spelilng

[oak]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

Hey I am sincerely interested, if you would like to say more.

 

Maybe If you compare the symbologies of the sacred books you get to the conclusion that they have deeper readings. It's my belief that they do have deeper readings and also that unless someone makes a serious investment in the path the doors to those deeper readings won't open.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by oak
Forgot something

[steve]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

Buddhism has got many good ideas directions and tools, but ... .... like the 8 Limbs of Yoga .... they do not have any system of techniques because they don't really know what is happening.    Their collection of tools does seem beneficial but uncertainty surrounds it.   Certainly they do not have any step by step path.

It's interesting that this is your impression of Buddhism.

Mine is the opposite, I've not encountered a spiritual tradition with a more well-defined step by step path or less uncertainty.

I guess that's why there are different approaches, we all need something different to help us along the way.

 

 

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

One of the biggest problems is the belief that there is no self, yet you should still work towards a goal.   Why ?   It's dumb logic.

Buddha never posited that there is no self, that's a common misunderstanding.

When asked point blank if the self exists, his response was silence.

The point in Buddhism is to personally investigate what the self actually is in our experience.

If we look deeply enough we may realize that many of our assumptions are mistaken.

Yes, it is the "self" that is working towards a goal, but that "self" is a misinterpretation of reality.

 

 

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

People are afraid to use the ordinary logic of a carpenter on the path.   They all aspire to throwing common sense away and feeling some magic.   Wrong.   Wrong approach.

 

Carpenter is honest, he has a job, a plan, and he acts and sees the result.    This is the correct approach.   Any theory is directly linked to action and realisation.

Your carpenter is a good example of the Buddhist approach.

Practice a step by step path and see if the results in your life reinforce the practice. 

Nothing to believe, no magic, just common sense and observation.

If it works, continue on. If not, let it go and move on.

 

 

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

If you sit in a Buddhist centre and somebody begins with the 4 Noble Truths, "There is suffering ..."

STOP.  Stop right there.   Why do you begin like this ?   Are you depressed ?    
Although you might continue to study Buddhism you must realise that they begin in a particular polarised direction that has no justification.

The reason to begin like this is that Buddha's objective was to help relieve suffering.

With that objective, where else would one start?

Can you really look at the world around you, your own life, and claim there is no suffering?

 

 

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

Your own ordinary logic reasoning should be applied.   Ask questions, often very obvious questions.

 

Once in a Vipassana retreat I was interviewed at the front by the teacher, with 150 students sitting in the room, I said to the teacher : "why shouldn't I think whilst in meditation".    He said "that is the technique so just do it".
I told him that I would have to think about it.

I left the retreat later that day.

Of course there are times of just following doing and trusting, but don't go too far.

Humans are quite desperate to help each other, but their intelligence sensitive is not that high - this leads to the kind of teaching environments like Buddhsim.

 

There is some value in studying Buddhist (or any) theoretical acadaemia because your intelligence might grow in general.   However if what you study is not related to reality it is like a carpenter studying somebody's wild ideas about carpentry, rather than studying theory and applying it immediately and seeing it in practice.   acadaemia must be directly linked to reality, otherwise it is a kind of masturbation of the head leading to loss of intelligence.

Buddhism is not theory or academia, it is ordinary, logical practice - right action, right vocation, right speech, Vajrayana practices, Dzogchen, etc... The theory is secondary.

Some certainly get wrapped up in the theory but that was not the original intention.

The instruction is to give the methods a try and see if it works for you.

If not, let it go and find something else. 

 

[rideforever]

1 hour ago, oak said:

Maybe If you compare the symbologies of the sacred books you get to the conclusion that they have deeper readings. It's my belief that they do have deeper readings and also that unless someone makes a serious investment in the path the doors to those deeper readings won't open.

 

Yes, perhaps you can give an example ??

 

I will give you one.   The last supper, at this time it appears Jesus put some of his blood and some part of his flesh into the meal so that he would become blood brothers with all the disciples so that they may be instructed after his death.   At that time it is also interesting to see that Jesus fed Judas from his hand, which can be contemplated; perhaps he was keeping his enemies close to him, or perhaps he realised that this deed must be done and like at the end of John Wick your greatest enemy is also the one who travels deep into the path with you.   Possibly Judas was the greatest student of Jesus and only he could be trusted with the terrible job.

 

Mary Magdalene, there are gnostic gospels that speak of her as having an intimate instinctive grasp of the teachings of Jesus, beyond the mechanical arduous struggle to understand of the other students.   Why would this be so ?   It is perhaps because she entered life, ordinary life,  and got stuck in, she did what was required, ugly and low that it might be, a woman of the street ... and in her instinctive meeting with ordinary life she kept her soul alive, and so then when she entered the path her soul and instinct grasped the teachings like a rose being watered.   Whereas those who had lived their ordinary life in security .... they had so many walls that it was a long way back.  Hence Jesus says 'sell all you own, and follow me', 'the first shall be last', and so on.    This is a beautiful teaching from a beautiful woman, an real woman.

[rideforever]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

 

Yes Buddhism has a vast architecture of teaching, a lot like liberal intellectual culture. ... how do they say it in Tae Te Ching .... the great pretence begins.    If you have a very large path with endless books and sutras, well people will be dead before they finish it and so nobody will ever question you.   

 

Is there a self ?    It's okay I will answer this.
First of all the self refers to the inner world of the subject rather than objects ... bear that in mind ...

We live as part of a large system, you can call that a Self : if you like you can divide it into its substance, its spirit, its dynamic energy, and its creator.

As for a small self do we have a small self ?

A human when born is part of the collective soul of the species, plus it has a tiny seed of an individual self, a true individual.   This must be nourished to grow into a true individuated eternal being, which is what a Buddha is ... he is a creature who lives eternally as an individuated division of the whole.
The question of whether we have a small self is wrong; we should ask how do we get one.   
Like many endless arguments in human culture, the question itself is wrong.

 

The carpenter has very little theory.   Just enough to cut this piece of wood, and that's it.   Anything else is the great pretence.

 

If you practice diligently in any of the main techniques like Mahamudra, Samatha or Zen, and get rid of your books, then I expect you will make progress.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by rideforever

[oak]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

Yes, perhaps you can give an example ??

 

I will give you one.   The last supper, at this time it appears Jesus put some of his blood and some part of his flesh into the meal so that he would become blood brothers with all the disciples so that they may be instructed after his death.   At that time it is also interesting to see that Jesus fed Judas from his hand, which can be contemplated; perhaps he was keeping his enemies close to him, or perhaps he realised that this deed must be done and like at the end of John Wick your greatest enemy is also the one who travels deep into the path with you.   Possibly Judas was the greatest student of Jesus and only he could be trusted with the terrible job.

 

Mary Magdalene, there are gnostic gospels that speak of her as having an intimate instinctive grasp of the teachings of Jesus, beyond the mechanical arduous struggle to understand of the other students.   Why would this be so ?   It is perhaps because she entered life, ordinary life,  and got stuck in, she did what was required, ugly and low that it might be, a woman of the street ... and in her instinctive meeting with ordinary life she kept her soul alive, and so then when she entered the path her soul and instinct grasped the teachings like a rose being watered.   Whereas those who had lived their ordinary life in security .... they had so many walls that it was a long way back.  Hence Jesus says 'sell all you own, and follow me', 'the first shall be last', and so on.    This is a beautiful teaching from a beautiful woman, an real woman.

 

I see that you are a fast galoping horse. Good luck in getting there!

[steve]

4 hours ago, rideforever said:

Is there a self ?    It's okay I will answer this.
First of all the self refers to the inner world of the subject rather than objects ... bear that in mind ...

We live as part of a large system, you can call that a Self : if you like you can divide it into its substance, its spirit, its dynamic energy, and its creator.

In my view, the self transcends the duality of subject and object. 

It transcends divisions and labels.

Our views are a bit different on this point, perhaps.

 

 

 

 

[rideforever]

10 minutes ago, steve said:

 

 

Those are just weasel words.
Everything is everything, nothing is nothing, everything just happens, nothing ever happens, fish and chips, dog shit, we are all oneness.
Etc...

[thelerner]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

Those are just weasel words.
Everything is everything, nothing is nothing, everything just happens, nothing ever happens, fish and chips, dog shit, we are all oneness.
Etc...

I don't think they're weasel words.  To me Steve might be putting at least part of Self into the realm of Soul.. a kind of a transcendent, eternal, non divisiveness.. the kind of thing experienced in mysticism during satori. 

 

 

addon> and in a practical sense, when the world is giving you guff, its helps to realize, somewhere deep down we have a core of divinity.

Edited August 4, 2018 by thelerner

[steve]

32 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

Those are just weasel words.

Yes, they are words but not weasel words (eg intentionally misleading or ambiguous).

They are precise instructions for Dzogchen meditation.

When subject-object distinction collapses, this is referred to as resting in the nature of mind.

 

 

32 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Everything is everything, nothing is nothing, everything just happens, nothing ever happens, fish and chips, dog shit, we are all oneness.
Etc...

 

Spoiler

 

[Marblehead]

That is one angry weasel.

 

[Wells]

9 hours ago, steve said:

It's interesting that this is your impression of Buddhism.

Mine is the opposite, I've not encountered a spiritual tradition with a more well-defined step by step path or less uncertainty.

 

"Less uncertainty" about what exactly?

[rideforever]

11 hours ago, steve said:

They are precise instructions for Dzogchen meditation.

When subject-object distinction collapses, this is referred to as resting in the nature of mind.

 

How do these words affect your practice, exactly ?
Who is your teacher ?
How long have you been practising ?
What have you accomplished ?

 

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by rideforever

[rideforever]

Going back to Buddha's story, he studied under two teachers, Alara Kalama, Uddaka Ramaputta.

Under them he was taught and equalled their realisation.

 

So what they taught was systematic, and he reached their level.   If Buddha had started a school at this point, in order to teacher Kalama-Rmapuuta teaching .... then yes his teaching would have been systematic.

 

But he felt he had not really achieved realisation.

So then he had some adventures, and eventually sat under a tree.

There something happened to him and he realised.

 

Then he felt .... "nobody would understand".

 

Of course if he had taught Kalama-Ramaputta teaching, ... of course people would understand.   After all he studied with them and learnt the teaching in a few years.

 

But under a tree .... nobody would understand.

Nobody would understand, because he did not understand.

After all his systemic practices, it was only after he threw them away and sat remembering a child like state .... then it happened.

 

So we can conclude :

 

> systemic practices do not appear lead to realisation, though they might serve as a foundation, or maybe not

> Buddha might have already been awakeened after Kalama-Ramaputta but due to indoctrination something within him did not really comprehend his state .... particular indoctrination is the idea that there is nobody.   If there is nobody then why not kill yourself, who can gain benefit, who can practice, who can realise, who can attain nirvana.   
Of course this doctrine is wrong and pretty dumb.

> A child like state is required .... a return to normal thinking and experience.   Child says, I like this, I don't like that, I see this so it is real, I don't see that so I don't care about that.    He is uncorrupted and does not indulge in towers of ideas in the head.

 

Those who are ardent students of the system guarantee their failure.
Buddha was willing to leave his palace, leave one teacher after another, and finally throw away all his teachings and return to a low state of the child.   Which of course is completely the opposite of being a wonderful devoted student of a Buddhist school your whole life.   It is exactly the opposite thing.

 

One should copy Buddha''s life in everything he did.

 

 

[rex]

6 hours ago, rideforever said:

If Buddha had started a school ...

 

Those who are ardent students of the system guarantee their failure.
Buddha was willing to leave his palace, leave one teacher after another, and finally throw away all his teachings and return to a low state of the child.   Which of course is completely the opposite of being a wonderful devoted student of a Buddhist school your whole life.   It is exactly the opposite thing.

Shakyamuni Buddha taught the dharma and the vinaya as an oral tradition which formed the basis of subsequent schools after his death. As Buddha taught according to the needs, capacities and inclinations of his audience there is no one ‘system’ - while the essentials of the dharma and vinaya are essentially the same in all the different buddhist traditions, differences in interpretation led  to the formation of the different schools.

 

There is a certainty and intense insistence in your words which totally disregards a least a millennia of dharma practice. Doesn’t the fact that the dharma still exists and is still practiced at least hint that many practitioners have tested the teachings and found them not wanting?

 

You are of course entitled to your opinions based on your experience,  but is it really skillfull to make bold blanket statements which totally ignore the experience of others and who do find value in what they have experienced? Just because something may not be the right fit for you, it doesn’t mean that it’s not right for others. Now this is a rhectorial question not needing an answer, you question Steve about his experience and teachers - what about yours?

 

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by rex
Missing line & tpyos

[rideforever]

21 minutes ago, rex said:

Doesn’t the fact that the dharma still exists and is still practiced at least hint that many practitioners have tested the teachings and found them not wanting?

 

In the morning 9,000,000,000 people wake up and switch on the TV, and more or less agree with it.   The culture speaks of progress, freedom, democracy, economy, peace and children.   People might have their grumbles, but they agree with their grumbles.   Meanwhile somehow "every natural system on Earth is in decline' and our problems and solutions are unchanged of thousands of years.   People don't .... care.

In the morning when you open your eyes, are you just entering a different kind of dream, or are you actually awake.   Are you awake.

 

Everyone else is doing it .... how can it be wrong.   Gosh, is this really your logic ?

 

Everything I said is simply a natural conclusion based on what we know of his life story.   

 

But Buddha had a massive life-destroying shock, then when he returned to the palace he saw the dancing girls lying in a drunken heap after the performance, after that .... he never believed in the show again.

 

In fact it is having a life destroying shock - seeing the true state of mankind - it is this that is the first step on the Buddha's path, and a step that few Buddhists ever take.   In fact they mostly seek exactly the opposite they seek the security of words and .... what everybody else believes.

 

Most of if not all awakened beings had a similar shock.    So if you want it, you know what you have to do.

Edited August 5, 2018 by rideforever