Meditation people roll call!

so many typos...

It was noble to have not shown the dreaded "burning desire" to act?

No, it was impressive that he didn't have such a desire. This isn't speculation. I'm certain he did not. When the negative emotions are overcome, they are overcome completely. Things that may have at one time infuriated you now will only evoke your sympathy and compassion. It was impressive to watch Trungpa assess this man and try to discover what it was that he needed to hear without arrogantly trying to win a debate.

I'd like to chime in here and point out that dean is speaking from one particular Buddhist perspective, and that I differ on a couple issues.

As Dean rightly points out, though, we can't lump together "Eastern philosophy" and make broad generalizations about it. It's like lumping the Analytics & the Continentals together as "Western." It doesn't really tell us anything and denies crucial differences. Even within Soto Zen Buddhism there is much variation, to say nothing of the differences between Zen Buddhists in general, the Buddhist population at large, and the rest of Eastern thought.

And I want to explain in no uncertain terms (maybe for the first time, really) that "great vehicle" and "highest yoga tantra" as Dzogchen is called DOES NOT mean it's "better" than the "lower vehicles." The historical Buddha taught the path of renunciation. Ain't a thing wrong with that. It may be slower theoretically, but if someone practices the shit out of that path vs. a guy who studies Dzogchen but doesn't realize its beyond his capacity and never bothers to practice, the Dzogchen path is about useless here because it may only reinforce ignorance and introduce arrogance.

I very much appreciate you clarifying that, Dean.

No, it was impressive that he didn't have such a desire. This isn't speculation. I'm certain he did not. When the negative emotions are overcome, they are overcome completely. Things that may have at one time infuriated you now will only evoke your sympathy and compassion. It was impressive to watch Trungpa assess this man and try to discover what it was that he needed to hear without arrogantly trying to win a debate.

Why do you characterize the desire to engage someone as always involving a negative emotion? Wanting to engage in a constructive dialogue should not be characterized as the mere desire to "arrogantly" "win" a debate.

I apologize for the generalization about Eastern philosophies, by the way.

Much appreciated, though no apology necessary.

Why do you characterize the desire to engage someone as always involving a negative emotion?
Do I always do that? I don't mean to. I just meant that in this case, he sat patiently while a guy browbeat him for 11 minutes. Krishnamurti is a guy who's put out a bunch of books of eastern philosophy (I have several) and here he is showing contempt for this man in front of him, satisfied with himself, dissatisfied with a fantasy he's created due to his own ignorance and over-generalizing. Krishnamurti is someone many people look up to as a real "master" of a sort. So, here, we have reason to discuss the engagement in terms of relative negativity. Krishnamurti set up a strawman and started beating away. Trungpa rightly saw all the truth being expressed and didn't bother to try to correct him.

Thought and emotion from a dualistic point of view are similar to creating a little box and squeezing inside it. In reality, and in rigpa, a thought or emotion is like a cloud in the sky. Your mind is as vast as the sky and the little arising emotion or thought drifts on through and dissipates. In the "squeezed in a box" perspective, one loses all sense of himself and is entirely wrapped up in the box of his emotions or thoughts. But, if he saw how the situation really was, he would realize that he himself was the box which had chosen to form around a passing cloud rather than simply letting it self-liberate into its ordinary nature. Engaging a person shouldn't be about comparing cloudy obscurations or boxes, but taking a step back and enjoying the view. This is what Trungpa did. He said, basically, "Yes, I see what you mean. Try to look at it this way." But, he was talking to someone who immediately jumped from one box into another while smiling victoriously at his own intellect. This could be likened to the fact that you don't make love through hate. You don't engage someone by browbeating them and you don't lead by bad example. Or, you shouldn't, anyway, if you have others' best interests in mind.

Who's familiar with that other Krishnamurti, U.G.?

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/

From Trungpa's perspective, Krishnamurti is a barrage of clouds and Trungpa is the sky. Trungpa is looking at all the clouds for what they are, but he also sees that Krishnamurti has encased them all in suspended animation and won't let them go. So, he is concerned. Notice him on the edge of his seat, with interest, looking at the older man (who is, in reality, a child student of Trungpa's) and suggesting things. He is handing tools to the sky, so that the sky might find a way to pick the lock and free the clouds, so that they might self-liberate and dissolve and Krishnamurti might enjoy his true nature as the sky once again.

(yes, I know, lizards smoking pot)

i smell that new meme smell

It smells like the glorious (pot) clouds in the sky!

btw, I'm drunk. How am I doing? Anywhere near as good as Trungpa? ;-)

Ha I guessed as much.

Awwww.... so, no good, then? I feel pretty good. Chemical problems but otherwise okay.

You were impressively lucid, but given that you'd just talked about lucidity while drunk and going to get drunk, I figured you were drunk.

I shouldn't have. I don't really like it anymore and today my head hurts. I think meditation is a good alternative to getting drunk, unless you're getting drunk while socializing.

Dean, I understand the premise of the box versus the sky but I see it as a bit of a loaded analogy - "Why put yourself in a 'box' when you can be the sky?" Well, because, like I said, emotional reactions are functional. Choosing to act on them doesn't always feel so much like you've chosen to merely "put yourself in a box," but often, in fact, feels that you are taking a position as a means of creating a sense of liberation out of a situation or acting to fulfill a particular purpose or obtain a significant outcome.

Krishnamurti was not looking for compassion and sympathy in that situation; he was looking to be engaged. And maybe if he had been engaged, he would have been less frustrated and less prone to making arrogant statements.

Thought and emotion from a dualistic point of view are similar to creating a little box and squeezing inside it.

This is what I mean about the analogy. It's not only a box, it's a "little box" and you have to "squeeze inside it."

That said, I do myself often enjoy letting things go and appreciating the joy of the sky, as it were.

hi dere everyone i am in boulder aka my least favorite place having just returned from shambhala mountain center aka a place trungpa rinpoche founded that ive been going to my entire life; now leaking into ilx. xo cheers.

Wow, that's great, jhøshea! I finally have a place like that myself where I can take classes and go on retreats, etc. Funny to think that at one point all I wanted to do was read books and not get involved with any community and now it's more like I wish I had more time to go to the center more.

This is what I mean about the analogy. It's not only a box, it's a "little box" and you have to "squeeze inside it."

Of course, it's a little box you squeeze inside: it's just one tiny possibility out of infinite others. At the moment you grab on, you're lost. It pulls you away from who you really are into a concept or a feeling. You can still appreciate concepts and feelings without letting them become your whole reality. This is what living distractedly means, following a stream of consciousness without being fully present. Thoughts and emotions are the reflections in the mirror, the mirror is who you really are. The mirror gives rise to spontaneous reflections, but it is still the mirror. The reflections will constantly change, but the mirror will always remain the same. Becoming skilled at remaining present doesn't mean one sacrifices the benefits of instinct. "Flight or fight" gives a person at least two choices. If someone hurts "your" feelings, is it better to follow that train of thought and put on a suit of emotion, like the black Spiderman costume, that you will only have to extricate yourself from later or is it better to recognize that A and B are connected and self-liberate naturally?

Krishnamurti was not looking for compassion and sympathy in that situation; he was looking to be engaged. And maybe if he had been engaged, he would have been less frustrated and less prone to making arrogant statements.

I don't think this is accurate. When Trungpa offered even a little piece of information, Krishnamurti saw it with blind-colored glasses. He didn't want to be engaged, he already made up his mind.

This must be pretty cool in person, eh jhøsea?
http://www.shambhalamountain.org/images/stubig-mahakala.jpg

Of course, it's a little box you squeeze inside: it's just one tiny possibility out of infinite others.

As I've said, I don't like the analogy. Thoughts often feel more liberating than box-like. Emotions are energies that can be cosmically grand in scope. But, yes, these things are personal - they are of YOU and not of God. I am sympathetic to the concept of living with some sense of detachment from thoughts and emtions and realizing their place within the non-dualistic reality. In fact, I practice this constantly. But I find your stance much too absolutist and judgemental.

If someone hurts "your" feelings, is it better to follow that train of thought and put on a suit of emotion, like the black Spiderman costume, that you will only have to extricate yourself from later or is it better to recognize that A and B are connected and self-liberate naturally?

This is what I mean. Can this question be answered absolutely? You seem to think so. I feel that "putting on a suit of emotion" (once again, I dislike the analogy) is, as I have said, often functional. Following the emotion rather than feeling you need to always let it go as a matter of spiritual discipline often helps you get where you wish to be.

put on a suit of emotion, like the black Spiderman costume, that you will only have to extricate yourself from later

This is rhetorical as well. One always has to "extricate oneself later" from a particular emotional response that one allows to inspire some course of action? I hardly think so. Emotional energy more often dissipates on its own.

When Trungpa offered even a little piece of information, Krishnamurti saw it with blind-colored glasses. He didn't want to be engaged, he already made up his mind.

Given that Trungpa spoke only about fifteen words total, this is kind of hard to judge.

Not really hard to judge when K interrupted him without hearing the rest of what he had to say... if he was interested in being engaged, he wouldn't have chopped the guy's sentence in half and asserted it as more important than the second half. Trungpa repeated the phrase, but at that precise moment the video ends. Why? Because Trungpa made his point in about 15 words total. Whether or not K wanted to hear it is a different story...

Thoughts often feel more liberating than box-like.

So you see the appeal of living distractedly. Now, you don't have to wonder why if everything was supposedly always perfect we ended up in a position where we are looking for ways to live contentedly.

if he was interested in being engaged, he wouldn't have chopped the guy's sentence in half

Don't remember the incident, but people do that all the time! You seem quick to me to judge it in this case. Do you really believe Krishnamurti had no interest in engaging in an actual conversation? That he was entirely closed-minded to what the other person had to say and was only interested in "winning" and proving the superiority of his wisdom?

From the excerpt I saw, I would not have rushed to this conclusion.

x-post: once again, I dislike the vocabulary. if one is engaged with one's own life, one is living "distractedly"

Try watching the video again. Maybe you judged too quickly.

So you see the appeal of living distractedly. Now, you don't have to wonder why if everything was supposedly always perfect we ended up in a position where we are looking for ways to live contentedly.

I'm afraid I don't follow this.

Or maybe you did. Maybe you put yourself in a box by having that thought and will have to extricate yourself.

if one is engaged with one's own life,

This perception is the distraction I am talking about: "Engage".

By disengaging you live less distractedly because you never forget what's really going on.

You can choose to focus on anything. Focusing on God is one choice - often a good one. But I do not live my life viewing other choices as "distractions."

Or maybe you did. Maybe you put yourself in a box by having that thought and will have to extricate yourself.

I didn't have the thought, I merely observed and pointed it out to you.

You can choose to focus on anything.

Best to focus on what's real, though, and not get caught up in distractions.

What? You've got to be kidding me. You did have a thought. And you made a judgement. "I merely observed and pointed it out to you" - talk about arrogance!

No, the thought was the judgement. I observed it and pointed it out.

That's just engaging in silly semantics. Do you really object so strongly to the phrase "I had a thought?" "I had it" - meaning it came from me a la "I had a baby."

the thought was the judgement.

I don't think my post merited a coy koan. I was pointing out two things - you had a thought and you made a judgement. I didn't state that they occurred separately.

"I" don't "have" thoughts.

Thoughts come out of our empty cognizance. They don’t come only from the empty quality. Space doesn’t have any thoughts, nor do the four elements. Sights, sounds, and other sensations do not think. The five sense doors do not think. Thoughts are in the mind, and this mind is the unity of being empty and cognizant. If it were only empty, there would be no way thoughts could arise. Thoughts come only from the empty cognizance. Once confused thoughts have subsided to some extent, it is easier to recognize the clear insight of emptiness.

People have different personalities. One person may be very gentle, disciplined, and kind— but while he is just sitting there, you won’t know that. Another one may be very crude, short-tempered, and violent, but you won’t know that either while he is just sitting there. These characteristics only show themselves once a person’s thoughts begin to move again. When thoughts move, we usually become caught up in delusion. At the same time, our nature is primordially free of the obscuration of emotions and thoughts. Thoughts and emotions are only temporary. The actual character of mind is one of self-existing wakefulness, the state realized by all buddhas.

Yes, as I have said, I understand those principles. I still don't see the point of the semantics. You are an individual, therefore, using the English language, you refer to yourself with the first person "I." If a thought occurs in your mind, it is yours to do with what you like. You possess it, therefore we use the verb "to have."

My practice is thought-less because in the base there is no thought, and when there is a thought, there is no practice. You might say at times I am carrying thoughts, but I don't have thoughts. In moments, they have me when I am distracted. Semantics are the only way to point out and all one can do is to continually point out until it is "caught."

To carry is to have, at least temporarily. That is the reality.

all one can do is to continually point out until it is "caught."

As I have said, I caught it. In fact, I understood it before this conversation took place. All I can do is to continually point out my (first person possessive) thoughts on the subject, presumably until THEY are "caught!"

"All karma and conditions, causes and results are false. Meditators are prisoners of thoughts; they keep thoughts in a prison and are prison guards! All these intellectuals who debate don't realize they cast a net in the darkness. All these discussions are like a joke and a play, a weapon of words. All the sacred tantras are merely elaborations of one's mind. All these knowledgeable persons are meaningless - they know and have no experience. These great views are bubbles of words - all these things are meaningless and make no sense. The real condition cannot be changed. The real essence cannot be practiced. Self-arising wisdom cannot be obscured. When you realize, you cannot re-realize or try to realize again. So what is the matter? Who is complaining?"
http://www.ligmincha.org/program/description/tapihritsa.html

"Life is meaningless" = a nihilistic position.

Yes, it is. But, what has that to do with anything and everything?

I don't know what you're asking.