|
Originally Posted by Gem
In Buddhism there is a philosophy or a teaching (bit of both really) which goes along with a practice. Practice and philosophy compliment each other. I have had the good fortune to undertake formal meditation in an ashram setting, and this undertaking begins with the formalities of 'taking refuge' and making moral vows (sila). As soon as these formalities are completed, the first meditation instruction is given. A person undertaking this will meditate according to the instruction during the following day. That evening they will attend a discourse which explains the philosophy behind the practice one has been doing that day.
The issues with meditation are pretty similar for people, so the evening teaching will touch upon the issues common to the first day's meditation. After the discourse is complete, meditation instructions for the following day are given.
With each preceding day the meditation becomes more refined, more exacting, and the evening discourse goes deeper into the philosophy, which is accordingly relevant to the refinements in practice.
The usual way we might think, to agree and to disagree, say this is right anf that is wrong, plays no part in it. It is more like, if it makes sense or you see how it applies to your life, then fine, you have seen and you understand. If, on the other hand, it doesn't make sense and you don't see how it applies to yourself, then don't accept it. There is no agreement or disagreement involved - there's is only insight. One will understand the philosophy according to whatever insight they 'discover'. That is how the teachings are given.
For our discourses here to be 'Buddhist', a practice must accompany whatever anyone says (regards 'right speech'). Without practicing 'the art of living' - which is a very refined art - there is no sense in Buddhist discourse, as it becomes the next dogma used in power/knowledge games.
One would be observant of themselves and see how the mind jumps on an agreement, and disagreement even more, and one would realise, 'oh I see the way I am construing perceptions'; thus making insight from what would have otherwise been merely agreement or disagreement.
It doesn't have much to do with texts some might regard as authentic due to the authoritative knowledge systems that sanction such text as knowledge. The dhamma teaching is completely open to consideration on how it reflects what you know of yourself, and what what you realise of the nature of your experience. This philosophical aspect is only a framework of expression, an epistemology, a way of producing meanings that reflect the 'truth of oneself'. They are not to be believed.
I started a thread some time ago about Buddhist practice, and I repeat here what I said there: there is no separation between our discourse here and practice, because philosophy and practice go together. That's what 'Buddhist' discourse is.
|