question about dharma experts

Lately I've notice more people writing or saying things like What the Buddha actually taught is

. . or What the dharma is REALLY all about is . . .

know what i mean? I don't get it. Where do people get their certainty on this subject?

It isn't really possible to know for sure what the purported Buddha intended or to break down such a varied religion into one set of correct ideas?

Maybe could amend to say, "...SOME people will believe you. Others will think you're a pretentious jerk, blowing smoke." I don't think they're making 'people' as gullible as they used to.

I think a person could say:
"This is what Dogen's Soto Zen is all about" and then back it up, or, "these are the essentials of mahasi-style vipassana" and then back that up.

those statements could be reasonable

If you are a light-to-heavy believer in textual primacy, I don't think it's a completely out-of-line thing to say. Especially the 'what the Buddha actually taught' bit as opposed to the 'what the dharma is all about' bit. It's a matter of returning to the oldest texts that we have, as opposed to commentaries or later developments; just in the way that many Christians will return to the Bible and check the text against what is being taught in their churches and among their congregations, and then go further and try to apply textual scholarship to get a feel for what parts of the Bible have the greatest chance of being the oldest and most authentic to the historical Christ.

It doesn't invalidate any later development (certainly not in today's atmosphere of the obliteration of authenticity), but I think it's a fair value for a practitioner to have, the desire to get as close as possible to the source of the teachings.

Questions from a very ignorant pracitioner:

1. Are there some texts out there that scholars legitimately believe are the actual words of some actual historical person now called the Buddha?

2. Assuming that or something close to that, if this actual historical Buddha actually said "be a light unto yourself" and/or "test what I say against your own experience don't just follow me blindly" or something like that -- wasn't he then just helping people to learn how to find their own way and not presenting some timeless orthodox truth to be adhered to?

I don't think any of the insights the buddha had and then "told" us about mean anything to us unless we then, through meditation and awareness, have our own original versions of those insghts.

What I seem to hear a lot lately are people saying:

- buddhism is all about getting enlightened, nothing else, or

- getting enlightened is bullshit, the purpose of buddhism is to relieve suffering, that is all, or

- the purpose of buddhism is to help others, it has nothing to do with personal goals or awakening progress

"... the desire to get as close as possible to the source of the teachings."

Meditation and personal experience


-cmarti

Or as I like to put it "more rock, less talk"

I'm pretty sure Zach meant to get as close as possible to which words of the Buddha are likely to be the source of the subsequent written down and expressed teachings of the "dharma." Maybe not, I guess. But that's how I took it.

Maybe so.

But, I've been listening to talks by Zach's teacher Josh Korda in which he never really mentions meditation. Instead, he just talks about various ideas/techniques for calming oneself down and becoming peaceful (and avoiding unpeaceful type activities) that are based upon ideas/teachings from I think the Pali Canon. And, I lot of it is very helpful to me. However, of course, I try it out in my experiences and/or what I hear resonates with things in my experience and makes something clearer in such a way that I become more open, calm, etc.

It's nice.

I'm not arguing. I'm sure he teaches meditation. but, in his talks that I'm referring to, the MP3s on his website, he really doesn't discuss meditation or teach meditation techniques (at least in the dozen or so I've listened to) he talks about things that cause suffering or stress in one's mind and things that can cause peace and/or eliminate suffering or stress in one's mind. Just as good stuff to know and work with.
I bring it up because it is helpful and interesting to me and a nice adjunct to meditation, and an interesting thing about this Josh Korda guy. I like anything that is helpful and want to share it.

Oh, and I guess I'm also suggesting that maybe there is a practice value in just hearing a teacher talking about things supposedly said by the buddha.

have you listened to the podcasts? He really is unique and, for me at least, illuminating.

Re:

What I seem to hear a lot lately are people saying:

- buddhism is all about getting enlightened, nothing else, or

- getting enlightened is bullshit, the purpose of buddhism is to relieve suffering, that is all, or

- the purpose of buddhism is to help others, it has nothing to do with personal goals or awakening progress

how about:
-Buddhism is one tradition which has outlined a system of teachings for "getting enlightened" that has been pretty well documented over centuries, in various forms (from Tibetan to Zen, etc.)
-the purpose of *enlightenment* is to relieve suffering; suffering here defined as resistance/aversion/attraction resulting in struggling with/for/against things as they actually are
-in helping others after enlightenment, one may have a different perspective, as one is not being driven by self-centered or egotistical needs and perceives "problems" in a different way
-one can also help others without being a Buddhist, or enlightened in any way at all; every action we perform all day impacts other people, and we can consider if it is helpful or not, as best we can given our own burdens and issues.

thoughts?

Incidentally, Mike, Josh leads a 35 minute meditation before each one of those talks; he just doesn't record them. I think there are a couple guided meditations of his to be downloaded. But generally speaking, teachers in the Thai tradition don't, in my experience, discuss meditation during dharma talks. The technicalities and specifics of advanced meditation techniques are in the books, but not the talks. Stuff with Ajaan Amaro et al is in a similar vein, though as you say Josh's approach is unique—he draws more on neuroscientific examples and profanity than most of the monastics.

I prefer the profanity to the neuroscience.

Or, how about the study of neuroprofanity? I like the sound of that.