Will I say the same things again?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Eelco

The basic teaching the buddha gave was that dhukka is a given, that there is a cause for dhukka, that cessation of dhukka is possible and that there is a path that leads to the cessation of dhukka.
This we know for sure he taught.

That sure is Buddha's main teaching.

As for how one goes about treading the path leading to the cessation of dhukka.(known as the noble eight fold path) we can only guess, use our discernment, talk to people who claim to be on the path and tell us what works and what doesn't.
I tend to fall back on the sutta's from the Pali canon, but am open to sutra's outside the Pali canon. Same for meditation, Vipassana or dry insight had me on a narrow path for a while, but opening my horizon's I found merrit in other sadhana(work on the path) as well.

Meditation vipassana, samatha, mantra, and a few other modalities can all help see what needs to be seen. It is why the Buddha in one Sutta takes new students around his senior monks and tell his students to go where based on the preferences and possibly constitution.

What we learn from the sutta's is that the Buddha had the ability to know where someone eager to learn was at and use a similie or teaching that was well suited to increase the chances in that student to experience a cessation.

After his death we are forced to make do with retellings and buddhist teachers undersatnding, which over the years resulted in different sects with different emphasis on certain parts of the sutta's.

It is our duty as students to keep an open mind and go where we increase our chances for understanding.

Again what you do and say Gem works for you, everyone who wants that should try it and see for themselves. It doesn't mean that is is the whole truth or even what the Buddha talked about.


With Love
Eelco

I just talk about what I know, and I can explain why mantra has nothing to do with mindfulness, because that's what I know about. I don't anything about mantra, samatha or samadhi meditation, so there's nothing I can say about that. If want you to explain anything mantra, samatha or samadhi meditation, then go ahead. You hear me saying "I have never heard of samadhi meditation" and that I know nothing about the others you mention, so there's no reason to think I have a 'whole truth' thang goin' on. All that's going on with me is, when I see myself starting to defend and justify myself in the light of accusation and insinuation I know I'm being misled into something that is 'less than metta', and that's not a place I want to go.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Eelco

And here another about self, and also what happens when we try to make sense of it. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-self-450193
It could just be the Buddha didn't say anymore, because he feared it would split the sanga as it has years down the road


With Love
Eelco

Thoughtco.com do some good articles, thanks.

Originally Posted by Gem

I just talk about what I know, and I can explain why mantra has nothing to do with mindfulness, because that's what I know about. I don't anything about mantra, samatha or samadhi meditation, so there's nothing I can say about that. If want you to explain anything mantra, samatha or samadhi meditation, then go ahead. You hear me saying "I have never heard of samadhi meditation" and that I know nothing about the others you mention, so there's no reason to think I have a 'whole truth' thang goin' on. All that's going on with me is, when I see myself starting to defend and justify myself in the light of accusation and insinuation I know I'm being misled into something that is 'less than metta', and that's not a place I want to go.

Then let's not go there.
You started this thread by stating this isn't Buddhism, but the practice.
So I am practicing.
I know my practice doesn't meet your practice requirements. But then you posted it, in a Buddhist section and started to explain why what you do is in line with the Buddhist teachings..


All I am doing is poking holes in your truth's about the practice.
We've covered this ground before, and when you feel the need to go another round and even another in this thread or another from within a buddhist perspective.. I'm all for it.


You did choose the Title very well as I said earlier.


I don't care if anyone knows anything about Buddhism, or meditation, or metta. I do care about someone who states understanding Buddhism and at the same time ignores teachers and sutta's in lieu of a personal conviction of how it should be.


That said I don't mind if you become the next avatar or guru or if you are right about everything. Just don't call it Buddhism or an understanding of what the Budhha meant. If he even existed which you seem to doubt on occasion.


With Love
Eelco

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

I will say what I always say: that this thread is not about Buddhist practice; it is the practice itself. I can't possibly frame the subject in any other way, because if it isn't in practice then it can't be called 'Buddhism'.This then only begs the question: what is the practice?

There are a couple of formalities: 'taking refuge' and some simple moral vows (sila). For the purposes of this thread, refuge should be thought of taking refuge or resting in the enlightenment within yourself, whatever it means to you... a secondary aspect of refuge is refuge in eachother, as we should be as trustful as we can that we wish for mutual happiness and greater benefit and well-being. If this remains our true wish, that makes us trustworthy. It's also the basic principle of 'metta', or loving-kindness.

The moral vows are pretty simple: not killing, stealing etc. or otherwise harming, which are a basic byproduct of taking refuge, and hence, metta. It is taught that these two together are the foundation of practice. So with refuge in enlightenment and conduct of kind, mutual respect, we're well founded for the intricacies of practice.

I recently said to a friend that within me now is the practice of being aware that 'nothing in me' can be left out. Meaning when I move through my own practice and awareness that something doesn't belong, I am, in that reflection creating a movement away from myself that is aware that everything belongs, so it this view I would be denying something of myself.

When I say nothing is left out, everything belongs, I am basically saying, everything within me I am able to stay present with in kindness, mutual respect is reflected to the external as I am. So in this way of being, everything is ok as it is, regardless of what I think it could be, needs to be, has to be.

Again we are meeting people where they are and where I am is simply aware and responding in sameness to what is, aware I guess.

Reading through this thread I notice that some find it difficult to move out of their own way, to go deeper into the practice beyond the concepts of Buddhism. By that I mean, their mind/knowledge dictate their response not the awareness aware of itself, responding with an open mind. Its ok of course, it just is, it all fits the picture of the whole integration of practice coming to life in some form of itself.

The other thing too. Its hard to talk Buddhism as a practice because it just goes around in circles on itself and your own mind's view of what it all means, especially if you just stay in the concepts of what that means. When the practice evolves more around the creation you are practicing it as, it comes to life as that and then of course you have more to share around the practice aware of itself and moving as that in the world.

For example, practising loving kindness for others and seeing how the ripples of your own care in this way can support others and yourself as one as the practice itself.

I work in a vintage shop and a customer arrived wanting support to match her outfits along with jewellery and clothing. I spent a long period of time supporting her and helping her, patient and aware of her needs and what she was seeking. I was practicing my loving kindness and patience, open to her as she needed. Over half hour went by and she had to go find a ATM. As she was walking out the door, she called out. "your so kind and helpful, Thankyou so much for what you have done and being so patient." I waited a good hour for her to come back, she had her partner with her this time. When I looked up and saw him, I smiled and he smiled. I realized it was my chiro, a wonderful caring man who takes care of my body balancing and spine. He said. "is this the lady you shared was very kind and helpful". She said "Yes, it is". "Do you too know each other?". We both gave an even bigger smile. I said. Your partner takes care of me, he is my chiro. That made her smile. In that moment she decided to take all three items, where as she thought she might only take two. So I made a great sale and enjoyed the ripples of care, loving kindness and support, that tends to flow and affect in ways we often do not know unless we practice our own open loving kindness towards others and life aware and patient of all beings as they are, everywhere we are.

[Gem]

[quote=Eelco]Then let's not go there.
You started this thread by stating this isn't Buddhism, but the practice.
So I am practicing.
I know my practice doesn't meet your practice requirements. But then you posted it, in a Buddhist section and started to explain why what you do is in line with the Buddhist teachings.

All I am doing is poking holes in your truth's about the practice.

If there's some point that you find inconsistent, then raise the point itself and explain the inconsistency without making assertions, accusations and insinuations.

We've covered this ground before, and when you feel the need to go another round and even another in this thread or another from within a buddhist perspective.. I'm all for it.


You did choose the Title very well as I said earlier.

But that's a sarcastic statement rather than a sincere one. It's supposed to insinuate something...

I don't care if anyone knows anything about Buddhism, or meditation, or metta. I do care about someone who states understanding Buddhism and at the same time ignores teachers and sutta's in lieu of a personal conviction of how it should be.


That said I don't mind if you become the next avatar or guru or if you are right about everything. Just don't call it Buddhism or an understanding of what the Budhha meant. If he even existed which you seem to doubt on occasion.

You are consistently making barbed accusations such as those above which impels me to be defend my good name, But I'm aware of myself entering that trap of defensiveness and self-justification, so I am not unconsciously compelled by it, but rather, am mindful to not go there.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I recently said to a friend that within me now is the practice of being aware that 'nothing in me' can be left out. Meaning when I move through my own practice and awareness that something doesn't belong, I am, in that reflection creating a movement away from myself that is aware that everything belongs, so it this view I would be denying something of myself.

Well said.

When I say nothing is left out, everything belongs, I am basically saying, everything within me I am able to stay present with in kindness, mutual respect is reflected to the external as I am. So in this way of being, everything is ok as it is, regardless of what I think it could be, needs to be, has to be.

That is good practice. My practice is very similar, so as I notice any adverse, avoiding come up, I start to accept that which I react adversely to rather than avoiding it.

Again we are meeting people where they are and where I am is simply aware and responding in sameness to what is, aware I guess.

Reading through this thread I notice that some find it difficult to move out of their own way, to go deeper into the practice beyond the concepts of Buddhism. By that I mean, their mind/knowledge dictate their response not the awareness aware of itself, responding with an open mind. Its ok of course, it just is, it all fits the picture of the whole integration of practice coming to life in some form of itself.

Indeed, the knowledge is a sticking point, but there is the knowingness of direct perception as different to learned knowledge we might try to emulate. Meditation in the direct knowingness of the moment is really just like you have said, with everything in experience being the truth of the experience as it is. It's easy enough when the experience is comfortable, but presents difficulty when hard sensations and emotional contents raise up into conscious awareness, but the healing entails these being 'the truth of the experience as it is' rather than things that 'should be as I want them to be'.

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by Eelco

"The terms Thai Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Korean Buddhism, and so on are social conventions. In each case, Buddhism in a country is not monolithic and contains many Buddhist practice traditions and tenet systems. Within these, there are subgroups consisting of monasteries or teachers with various affiliations. Some subtraditions emphasize study, others meditation. Some stress practicing serenity (samatha, śamatha), others insight (vipassanā, vipaśyanā), and others both together.

As followers of the Buddha, let’s keep these variations in mind and not think that everything we hear or learn about another tradition applies to everyone in that tradition. Similarly not everything we hear about how Buddhism is practiced in a particular country applies to all traditions or temples in that country.
Indeed we are a huge and diverse Buddhist family following the same wise and compassionate Teacher, Śākyamuni Buddha. I believe our diversity is one of our strengths. It has allowed Buddhism to spread throughout the world and to benefit billions of people on this planet."
-Buddhism:One Teacher , Many Traditions-
Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron.

Now does one follow the external teacher, Śākyamuni Buddha, or does one follow the inner "Buddha" the soul itself?



If we follow the person, as we not losing sight of our own souls and our own enlightened self? Should we not then connect with our own souls first? Sure, beings can be a great way shower, but would we not get lost within ourselves looking for someone to answer for us? Is it the teacher that helps us connect to that part of our self? If we connect to that part of our self, who becomes the teacher, the soul, or the teacher who helped us find it?



Of course, no disrespect to Buddhism at all. Just, merely, a curious seeker. And apologies for jumping into this thread in the middle of it, to an old comment.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by innerlight

Now does one follow the external teacher, Śākyamuni Buddha, or does one follow the inner "Buddha" the soul itself?



If we follow the person, as we not losing sight of our own souls and our own enlightened self? Should we not then connect with our own souls first? Sure, beings can be a great way shower, but would we not get lost within ourselves looking for someone to answer for us? Is it the teacher that helps us connect to that part of our self? If we connect to that part of our self, who becomes the teacher, the soul, or the teacher who helped us find it?



Of course, no disrespect to Buddhism at all. Just, merely, a curious seeker. And apologies for jumping into this thread in the middle of it, to an old comment.

I am not sure about soul stuff. I relate more from the holistic nature of myself. There are many parts to myself as I have learned. The totality of myself requires me to listen quite intricately and to the deepest most subtle aspects within me to allow the flow of anything outside of me to move through me.

Anything outside of myself becomes a reflection to become aware of myself through that. I use the term "through" because ultimately everything can either pass through and you become aware of yourself more complete as it does, or you can attach to the external teacher or thing, whatever it may be and lock into it. Everything in this way, becomes a point of recognition in some form of you aware of yourself and the other.


Jump away, what you sharing is very valid.

[naturesflow]

Indeed, the knowledge is a sticking point, but there is the knowingness of direct perception as different to learned knowledge we might try to emulate. Meditation in the direct knowingness of the moment is really just like you have said, with everything in experience being the truth of the experience as it is. It's easy enough when the experience is comfortable, but presents difficulty when hard sensations and emotional contents raise up into conscious awareness, but the healing entails these being 'the truth of the experience as it is' rather than things that 'should be as I want them to be'.

Yes I understand. The direct perception is what opens us to reflect and gain for ourselves through the external offering, rather than take it on as "gospel" and letting it rule your reality as the knowing itself. 'We are the knowing' through the concepts that have learned for itself its own knowing. In this way the external becomes a guiding point to build the concepts as yourself.

The world is full of ideas and creations that try to show us the "best" way to do things but I have learned that the greatest source (if able and willing)is oneself, through that direct perception you mentioned and find its own knowing in the truth of something that resonates outside of ourselves that knows for itself. Buddhism has shown me in myself without Buddhist teachings, that the path I have walked has opened me quite naturally to align to the Guts of the teachings, not because I made it so, but simply because I have walked a more conscious mindful self reflective path. I know that becoming aware of myself as deep as I can go into myself, brings to life many of the foundational precepts of Buddhism, without any study. For me the awareness within me opens me to become aware of myself opening to them most naturally just by being present with myself as a more "complete" opening within. I notice the movements of what transpires in me and it always takes me to the foundation of what I know would be called my true self or Buddha nature. I am aware of that point in myself and when life is happening outside of me, I know the depth of where I can go to open and feel my own clarity and awareness that fits me, more consciously aware and clear.


I think its only natural as one progresses along the path and dealing with deeper more difficult aspects, it can be an opportunity to deepen the practice itself by letting go of the self constraints, contained by the external and open to one's own inner world where your able to flow more freely with life as it is.

I speak about openness a lot in my writing, it may confuse some. I suppose what I mean in this way is the willingness to look and see, really take notice of yourself, feel and let go, open and gain the awareness of yourself more open to you, not what is moving outside of yourself. At the core of ourselves is our true nature that knows more directly the truth. That point in myself knows it cannot be closed off or contained to myself in any way. Now that I am aware of my own core of self, I am always lead back to it. There is no escape from myself in this view of myself, so all movements on the surface that move over this point in me (without attachment) will most often now days, be embraced through my true nature, which is peaceful and content with all things, even when things are not peaceful or in chaos. My feeling is, unless you have entered the core of yourself, it would be difficult to be guided and walking in life more open and connected to the abundance of self that can reflect itself to others as this. I know people do their best, with what they have, but ultimately once aware of yourself, the work or practice, experience you choose will activate us to see and know for ourselves, who we really are, what is really important and how we fit into the greater picture of nature as our true nature more aligned as life is within us.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by innerlight

Now does one follow the external teacher, Śākyamuni Buddha, or does one follow the inner "Buddha" the soul itself?




If we follow the person, as we not losing sight of our own souls and our own enlightened self? Should we not then connect with our own souls first? Sure, beings can be a great way shower, but would we not get lost within ourselves looking for someone to answer for us? Is it the teacher that helps us connect to that part of our self? If we connect to that part of our self, who becomes the teacher, the soul, or the teacher who helped us find it?

I think in a Buddhist context, the initial 'taking refuge in the Buddha' mostly pertains to a surrender to the enlightenment within, and it does not mean taking refuge in any person such as Gotama. The refuge in dhamma mainly means surrendering to nature's way, which in a sense means forgoing any 'way that is mine'. The more superficial meaning of dhamma is the teachings of Gotama as these are about nature's way, but are not nature's way itself. In this we we have a primary way of taking refuge in 'enlightenment' (whatever that means), and in the way the universe is. Under the Buddhist worldview, the universe is not so much an object named as a noun, but more like an activity described by a verb, so in effect, surrendering to this moment just as it is akin to refuge in dhamma. This is not how the texts state it, but because the written philosophy is not that to which it refers, it is only understood in the way an individual sees it, and it has no 'true meaning'. I discuss the subject by way of inner exploration and apply meaning to that written according to what I 'find out' in actuality, which I suggest is the way to understanding - and it would not be prudent to just adopt what Gem says. Gem has no 'true meanings' apart from those inner knowings, and all other people can only know what teachings mean through their own real lived discovery.


This leads directly to meditation, as meditation is basically the 'inner discovery' we call 'insight'.

Of course, no disrespect to Buddhism at all. Just, merely, a curious seeker. And apologies for jumping into this thread in the middle of it, to an old comment.

Actually, what we think of as Buddhism as a school of textual knowledge is not particularly accurate, because 'Buddha' primarily means the quality of enlightenment. What you imply, or at least what I infer from what you said, is more in the spirit of Buddhism than the volumes of knowledge called 'teachings'. Indeed, the teachings have no meaning at all other than that applied from the 'inner Buddha', as you put it.