Do as I say, not as I do.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I may have had a few things in mind, but mostly I sought myself, something I never found in the views of others.

How far do you need to go to find yourself? And did you need a Gee yoU aRe yoU?
The question is 'what are you'?
The misidentifying of oneself is often the issue.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

How far do you need to go to find yourself? And did you need a Gee yoU aRe yoU?

I will not divulge too many details, but in my religious times I have literally been around the world, tasted various religions and spiritual paths, and yes, studied under various priests, gurus and "shaman".

I think you're clever enough to find this to be a contradiction to what I've written. What I have written contradicts what I have done.

The question is 'what are you'?
The misidentifying of oneself is often the issue.

I agree.

Aphorism


I think you're clever enough to find this to be a contradiction to what I've written. What I have written contradicts what I have done.

I don't find a contradiction. I asked myself once today why I identify with much of your posts, even at times i choose to disagree. My thought was that you have come full circle, in searching to manifest or delve more deeply into matter and physicality instead of escape it. Going in either direction eventually leads full circle, to that which you attempted to escape in the beginning....

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

No there is no such "prevailing doctrines" that they disobeyed.
Ancient teachings of self knowledge were around before them, that means they certainly obeyed prevailing "doctrines" .

That's just false. A little research on your part might help.

It is not a matter of following someone else's doctrine.If you wanted to learn to fly a plane and did not know how to fly one by yourself you would trust and listen to the teacher's instructions on how to fly.
Some people can listen to the inner' Buddha' and do not need to externalize a teacher.

If you need to learn how to live, then that is because you don't know how to live. By all means, find a teacher if you do not know how to live.

Yes Buddha was a prince. Yes Buddha was a yogi. Buddha was an acetic.
These words successful prince, successful yogi, successful acetic are just some labels you don't want to put on Buddha in your mind.
You just don't want to see Buddha as successful.
His very enlightenment shows us he did not fail.
To know what you are you must first know what you are not.

He refused to become chieftain, thereby failing to become a chieftain. He refused his wife and child, thereby failing his family. He refused to remain a yogi, he refused to remain an ascetic, thereby failing to reach enlightenment through those practices. I never meant to imply Buddha was a failure, only that he failed many times. And without these failures, he wouldn't have become enlightened.

Buddha renounced the title he was born into (as he was not a title).[There is a lesson in there].
There was no failure you just think he failed,for how can his enlightenment equal failure.
You cannot be imagining that Buddha would not have become enlightened.

Since the time of ignorance on earth teachers have been here, the teachings may sound different to you but the message is the same.
In teaching Self knowledge they obeyed prevailing "doctrines" of dispelling ignorance.
If you look at the individual, judge them (with your misguided concepts on what is success in this life) then you miss the teachings .

If you are caught in trying to “create pleasure for yourself” and avoiding pain, “if you need to learn how to live, then that is because you don't know how to live.”
Thinking of Buddha as a failed is like thinking the winner of the race lost.
You are blind to the fact Buddha never failed.

reply to post by Bluesma


It's nice to know that someone can relate. From what you say, I suspect that you are more of a life affirming individual.

I think I will be full circle on the moment of death, but perhaps spiritually I've gone around that circle a few times.

reply to post by BDBinc


In a fit of boredom I watched a documentary on Buddha recently:

Buddha is human being. So he acted like a human being. So sometimes he also you see failed. He failed to perform miracle. The Buddha failed, but we, as the Buddha, fail constantly, and part of our suffering is our failure, our recognition of our failure.

- Dalai Lama

But in the Pali texts I've read, Buddha never affirms his failures or justifies them in any way.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

In a fit of boredom I watched a documentary on Buddha recently:

Buddha is human being. So he acted like a human being. So sometimes he also you see failed. He failed to perform miracle. The Buddha failed, but we, as the Buddha, fail constantly, and part of our suffering is our failure, our recognition of our failure.

- Dalai Lama

But in the Pali texts I've read, Buddha never affirms his failures or justifies them in any way.

Buddha renounced a title. It is not failure. Buddha was not a 'failed' prince or a "failed" yogi .So is the Dalai Lama a failed golfer if he does not play golf.
You said Buddha failed in the Prince, chieftain, yogi titles, I don't think so and that is not what the Dalai Lama said in the quote. He did not say that Buddha failed as a Prince, chieftain or Yogi, thats not what he said at all .
The Dalai Lama was not referring to tittles.If we suffer in our ignorance (enlightenment alleviates this).

The Dalai Lama said in your quote part of our suffering is our failure,our recognition of our failure. Seeing/recognizing failure is our failure.You recognize failure where there is no failure, you see Buddha as a failed prince.

Isn't the Dalai Lama saying Not knowing who we are is failure .
Enlightenment I.E the end of suffering is not "failed".

reply to post by BDBinc


The quote was in regards to Buddha not offering a political system to go with his philosophy. He wasn't able to stop the rampant war and violence that was plaguing India at the time.

Yes it was me that said Buddha failed at becoming a chieftain, being a father, becoming a yogi and becoming an ascetic. He tried these avenues and failed to find what he was looking for—the end of dukkha. He was mistaken. He did not succeed despite thinking he would succeed. You can use another word besides "failure" if you wish.

What I'm trying to say is that we learn from our mistakes, yet Buddha renounces his mistakes as not paths that one should take, even though he himself took them. Why would he renounce his mistaken paths, what he called the extreme paths, if he himself walked them?

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

The quote was in regards to Buddha not offering a political system to go with his philosophy. He wasn't able to stop the rampant war and violence that was plaguing India at the time.

Yes it was me that said Buddha failed at becoming a chieftain, being a father, becoming a yogi and becoming an ascetic. He tried these avenues and failed to find what he was looking for—the end of dukkha. He was mistaken. He did not succeed despite thinking he would succeed. You can use another word besides "failure" if you wish.

What I'm trying to say is that we learn from our mistakes, yet Buddha renounces his mistakes as not paths that one should take, even though he himself took them. Why would he renounce his mistaken paths, what he called the extreme paths, if he himself walked them?

Buddha did not say "I failed as a chieftain, a yogi, prince and ascetic " and "I thought I would succeed' , again these are just your thoughts about what you think Buddha thought without a breath of evidence supporting your idea . The Dalai Lama in your quote did not say that Buddha failed as a chieftain, prince, being a father or yogi .

The offering up of a different "political system" to mankind cannot end violence or war. Bringing enlightenment to all mankind can.

If someone has experienced a hot element and can tell you not to touch it all the better for you. There is no need for you to put your hand on the stove because the person telling you not to touch the stove did it.He tells you not to touch it because he KNOWS.
We don't always learn from our mistakes.
Is it not out of love and kindness that Buddha's middle path was taught.

reply to post by Bluesma


There may be some truth to the saying; those that cannot do teach.

"Why is it that as soon as you proclaim "This never happens to me..." , it does? Or "I am never like that" the day after, you are!
Or I always do that, and the next day, you don't, you forget. "

Could be just the universe keeping you humble or showing you that something you thought of as an absolute really is not.

"it makes me think that we are somewhat left with the choice to either say or do, but not both.
That doesn't stop me from trying- my desire to develop integrity never leaves me. But there are definately lots of moments when I find myself having to decide- do I tell them about it, or do I just DO it? Show, or tell?"

If you sense pride/ego may be in the way of what you are trying to get across using a story, metaphor or just showing someone through action is an excellent way to teach, this can get around a persons ego. There is a thought that humans learn the quickest by watching someone doing something as opposed to hearing a lecture about it. At least in terms of manipulative/psychomotor learning.
Getting back to the OP''s post I do not think that you always have to touch the stove, on some things you can hijack the wisdom of others. We do not live long enough to figure it all out on our own.

Bluesma

Many years ago, while reading of Krishnamurti ( his teachings noted by his followers), I got to the realization that he repeatedly put emphasis on this being the wrong way to find any real freedom or enlightment. That listenign to someone else, reading someone elses experience, only leads you away from your own path.

He was afraid that after his death, a cult would be built around him and his teachings, and he didn't want that to happen, and of course it did. The people who sat at his feet and heard him saying not to do that, did it anyway.

I've had this discussion with Krishnamurti devotees many times. One the one hand, we all do have to find our own path and direction and most certainly find our own self-decipline. On the other, we need the guidance and experience of others to 'light' the way.

We need to know what we may do and find options. I need the help of others because I can't think of all the ways of 'walking' that are available to seekers and it takes a while to find what works for you. To know yourself if you will.

There is a laziness in 'following' orders. Doing what a 'priest' tells you to do. You don't have to figure it out yourself.

I don't believe any of the Wise Ones were telling people what to do and how to be. What started as tradition turned to dogma, etc.

The young (and I count youth in maturity/experience/wisdom not years) need guidance and feedback.

Guidance and self-reflection are not mutually exclusive, I need both.

Buddhism has three refuges from suffering:

The Buddha
The Teachings
and
The Sangha (which is a community of like minded seekers).

You need all three, a role model, oral or written teaching from someone who further along the path - and different teachers can help in different areas) and support in your journey.

And so it goes.

"Here, monks, some misguided men learn the Dharma – discourses, stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories, marvels, and answers to questions - but having learned the Dharma, they do not examine the meaning of those teaching with wisdom. Not examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain a reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dharma only for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dharma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a long time."

source

reply to post by BDBinc

Buddha did not say "I failed as a chieftain, a yogi, prince and ascetic " and "I thought I would succeed' , again these are just your thoughts about what you think Buddha thought without a breath of evidence supporting your idea . The Dalai Lama in your quote did not say that Buddha failed as a chieftain, prince, being a father or yogi .

I didn't say they said it. I am sharing my opinion. Of course they're my thoughts. I don't see what your point is, because they also never said what you're saying.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Buddha did not say "I failed as a chieftain, a yogi, prince and ascetic " and "I thought I would succeed' , again these are just your thoughts about what you think Buddha thought without a breath of evidence supporting your idea . The Dalai Lama in your quote did not say that Buddha failed as a chieftain, prince, being a father or yogi .

I didn't say they said it. I am sharing my opinion. Of course they're my thoughts. I don't see what your point is, because they also never said what you're saying.

I am making it clear its just your opinion (and not the Dalai Lama's when you take to using his quote out of context to try to support your ideas of Buddha as a "failed" prince, father, chieftain and yogi etc).
Enlightenment is success.

reply to post by BDBinc

I am making it clear its just your opinion (and not the Dalai Lama's when you take to using his quote out of context to try to support your ideas of Buddha as a "failed" prince, father, chieftain and yogi etc).
Enlightenment is success.

Success is an egotistical notion. If that's what you're after, you'll never find it.