Bringing Buddha to Buddhism

[Gem]

For a person who knows little of Buddhism, I can say it is basically a collection of terms which have definitions. Because someone may be new this kind of language, it seems as though they don't know anything about it, but they probably do understand a lot in their own language, and even more in their own personal way of expressing.

The first definition is: "Buddha" means the enlightenment in yourself, and we recognise each other as that. This is why we appreciate so much each others' presence. You are like me in terms of the enlightened spirit. This leads to loving kindness - of which no explanation is required.

The dedication of Guatama's (Buddha's) life was to recognise there is suffering, discover the primal cause of suffering, and through that understanding, bring an end to suffering. That's the purpose of Buddhism, which pertains to any person's life (A comprehensive discourse on "Four Noble Truths" here: http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm)

Even though Buddhism has become a religion with numerous sects, it is better to remove religiosity from it. The teachings of Guatama the Buddha are accessible to anyone. If you are of another religion or culture, continue as such, for this is not a conversion exercise.

If you are here, Buddha is here as the enlightenment yourself. The spiritual 'beingness' is present with, and present as, you, me, us.

The word 'practice' is daunting isn't it? It sounds like someone will give you instructions which you then ardently follow. It can be that, but in the context of a forum discussion, the practice is to be self aware, considerate of others, and expressing one's self from that heart of loving kindness. Is that heart not the natural expression of your most enlightened self?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

For a person who knows little of Buddhism, I can say it is basically a collection of terms which have definitions. Because someone may be new this kind of language, it seems as though they don't know anything about it, but they probably do understand a lot in their own language, and even more in their own personal way of expressing.

It's all about language. Since buddhist traditions have their own convention of language it may appear to non-buddhist people as if they are expounding something new.

Originally Posted by Gem

Even though Buddhism has become a religion with numerous sects, it is better to remove religiosity from it.

Most straightforward way to do this is to call it a kind of 'psychotherapy'.

Originally Posted by Gem

The word 'practice' is daunting isn't it? It sounds like someone will give you instructions which you then ardently follow. It can be that, but in the context of a forum discussion, the practice is to be self aware, considerate of others, and expressing one's self from that heart of loving kindness. Is that heart not the natural expression of your most enlightened self?

Well as for my part I would use the term 'enlightenment' or 'enlightened' only in the context of the 'Age of European Enlightenment' but certainly not in the context of the psychotherapy known as 'budddhism'. Also, since I have learned 'common buddhism' to come close to mere cultivation of 'nice' emotions that feel good and are therefore called 'good' or 'right' while other emotions are called 'bad' or 'wrong' although they belong to human nature too I would not put emphasis on emotions at all. For me it is not the emotional aspects that are interesting in the context of 'buddhism' but the insight aspects, the effects of language and the so called 'practices' from a perspective of psychology.

[sky]

According to Buddha's teachings emotions are an expression of who we are and should be respected and accepted.I think we can become very judgemental about our emotions instead of just accepting them for what they are.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

According to Buddha's teachings emotions are an expression of who we are and should be respected and accepted.

This is not correctly put.
The cultivation of so called 'good' or 'right' emotions is taught as antidot against 'bad' or 'wrong' emotions. The 'good' or 'right' are so called because they support the attainment of liberation whereas the 'bad' or 'wrong' ones block the attainment of liberation.
Next the emotion called 'loving kindness' is taught as a means to attain jhana absorption.
Finally emotions belong to the aggregates, skandhas, which are not self and should be seen as such.

[mulyo13]

Originally Posted by Ground

:since I have learned 'common buddhism' to come close to mere cultivation of 'nice' emotions that feel good and are therefore called 'good' or 'right' while other emotions are called 'bad' or 'wrong' although they belong to human nature too I would not put emphasis on emotions at all. For me it is not the emotional aspects that are interesting in the context of 'buddhism' but the insight aspects, the effects of language and the so called 'practices' from a perspective of psychology.

Originally Posted by Ground

This is not correctly put.
The cultivation of so called 'good' or 'right' emotions is taught as antidot against 'bad' or 'wrong' emotions. The 'good' or 'right' are so called because they support the attainment of liberation whereas the 'bad' or 'wrong' ones block the attainment of liberation.

Emotion is emotion. Good or right or bad or wrong emotion is a labeled mind as a causality of judgement thoughts. The one who block the liberation is the judgement thoughts, the good or right or bad or wrong one is just an 'illusion' that makes we think that they support or blocking the liberation.
In vipassanna, we just watch/aware/know/witness the thoughts with out judging it. Read vinicchaya for more about judgement.

[sky]

'Emotions are a agitated mind state or disturbance caused by strong feelings about somebody or something. There need be no preference as to whether they are positive or negative as they are related to as just mind states: as ordinary or higher states of mind, that is, just mental events to be noted without seeing them as significant in any way.

Without judging or evaluating them, emotions are monitored throughout the day by labeling or mentally noting them. This helps to develop a more non-reactive awareness toward the emotion, without the tendency to identify with them or play back into the associated story. This practice helps one to relate to emotions more dispassionately while at the same time revealing the transitory nature of mental events.

The clarity now that one has in relating to the emotion can then be taken a step further by tuning into the underlying feeling tone that is associated with an emotion, such as unpleasant feeling. In this way the feeling quality itself is highlighted, thus allowing for the primary feeling to be investigated as it has become distinct from the emotional content.'



Insight Meditation Online....

[Ground]

Originally Posted by mulyo13

In vipassanna, we just watch/aware/know/witness the thoughts with out judging it. Read vinicchaya for more about judgement.

It is primarily about mindfulness what you mention.
And there are different views among buddhists. One view is that of bare attention which seems to be your view and another view holds that categorizing is necessary in order to attain the ripening effect to be attained.
Since I am not into mindfulness I am just philosophically interested. And from my perspective bare attention does not make any sense because either you have a goal or not but if you don't have a goal why practice mindfulness at all? If there is a purpose of practicing mindfulness then there has to be categorizing of what appears.
Maybe your concept of 'judgement' is a mix with 'being emotionally affected'. From my perspective the concept of 'judgement' merely means 'categorizing objects': 'it is this (but not that)'. The best way to not be emotionally affected while being mindful is to see the emptiness of inherent existence of all objects appearing (sense objects, emotions, thoughts etc.), i.e. to integrate insight into emptiness and mindfulness.

Originally Posted by mulyo13

The one who block the liberation is the judgement thoughts, the good or right or bad or wrong one is just an 'illusion' that makes we think that they support or blocking the liberation.

That is ambivalent advice because it could be understood as 'thoughts are bad/wrong and have to be stopped'. But no, thoughts are perfectly ok. A state of 'no thought' can easily become a state of stupidity.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

It's all about language. Since buddhist traditions have their own convention of language it may appear to non-buddhist people as if they are expounding something new.

It can become a lot of words in a 'foreign' language, and learning that is fine for people who are really into it, but if I were to explain what a Pali term meant I'd only be translating it into English - so might as well just say it English. It's far more accessible.

Most straightforward way to do this is to call it a kind of 'psychotherapy'.

Indeed. I think there is a difference in that Buddhism is aspiring to the higher spiritual path, and emotional healing processes are consequential to that. I can only say that equanimity or balance of mind with which one endures experience is more to the point that the experience itself. If one is peaceful with change, healing transformations are enabled. I think the former is more the point, and the latter is more of an aside.

Well as for my part I would use the term 'enlightenment' or 'enlightened' only in the context of the 'Age of European Enlightenment' but certainly not in the context of the psychotherapy known as 'budddhism'. Also, since I have learned 'common buddhism' to come close to mere cultivation of 'nice' emotions that feel good and are therefore called 'good' or 'right' while other emotions are called 'bad' or 'wrong' although they belong to human nature too I would not put emphasis on emotions at all. For me it is not the emotional aspects that are interesting in the context of 'buddhism' but the insight aspects, the effects of language and the so called 'practices' from a perspective of psychology.

I avoid like the plague discussion on 'what is enlightenment' , so let's say it's used figuratively and is open to interpretation in context. Perhaps the vaguer it is 'understood' the better.

I like the term 'Liberated'. I think people at least have some sense of 'liberated'. 'Liberation' implies 'the freedom from' bondage, and it also implies 'the freedom to' vaster possibilities. This is somewhat meaningful, I think.

In ones mindfulness, the arising of emotion would not be judged. It would simply be 'the truth of experience that is'. I think many of the new age variations promote pleasurable things rather than uncomfortable things and term it positivity and negativity etc. We sometimes see on the forum a lot of allusions to wonderful things, but as the 'First Noble Truth is "There is sufferingthat is, one can just see there misery in their lives and in the lives of others. This is about what is true, and it really has noting to do with preferences. The Second Noble truth is "The origin of suffering" and this is reportedly what Guatama went on to discover and thereby find resolution.

Hence, this was the insight and the wisdom which is both instrumental and consequential to a truthful and true to life process.

[Ground]

Now in the context of reality which may become the object of interest in the later life following birth it is interesting that 'knowledge' necessarily has the connotation of 'view'. And because 'knowledge' per my suggested definition is based on and represented by words it can be communicated although those words are empty of meaning from the outset. The meaning intended by a speaker has to arise in the mind of the recipient of these words. However the meaning that arises in the mind of the recipient of words depends on the recipients conditionings. Therefore different recipients may need different words to cause the view corresponding to reality to arise.
So there is the aspect of 'view' which is the verbal expression of it which may be equated with 'knowledge' and the aspect of 'view' which is the meaning arising in the mind of a hearer upon hearing the verbal expression of it. So funnily someone may verbally express the view corresponding to reality, in terms of the aspect of verbal expression correctly from the perspective of one who sees reality although not having the 'right view' in terms of the meaning aspect. And the other way round is also possible: someone may have the view corresponding to reality as meaning aspect however may not be able to express it in a way that makes another person understand.
The question then is whether it may happen that even if two individuals have the view in terms of meaning corresponding to reality in their minds they do not understand each others words correctly and assume that the other has the 'wrong' view?
Or whether it may happen that even if two individuals have a view in terms of meaning not corresponding to reality in their minds they do understand each others words as if correctly expressing the view corresponding to reality?
Now the religious belief in budddhism is that an 'all-knowing' buddha always know the words that are to apply for a certain type of conditioned recipient so that the meaning corresponding to reality arises in his mind. If so then the words in the scriptures cannot be the words of a buddha because these words are standardized for a certain exclusive audience.

Anyway ... after all this rambling speech ... what then is the connection with certainty which is according to my suggested definition not based on words? I'd suggest that the individual intuitive experience that one's individual conditings and the knowledge in terms of verbal expression and the view in terms of the meaning of the verbal expression of this knowledge do match and that this match causes certainty to arise. However I have not mentioned reality here since certainties may again fade away and arise based on different knowledge in terms of verbal expression and view in terms of the meaning of the verbal expression of this knowledge. I.e. only the additional match with reality will entail a stable certainty.

Now this of course has just been a heuristic development of a hypothesis concerning the relationship between knowledge and certainty based on my definitions of 'knowledge' and 'certainty' and based on the assumption that the postulate of a singularity called 'reality' is appropriate.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

Now in the context of reality which may become the object of interest in the later life following birth it is interesting that 'knowledge' necessarily has the connotation of 'view'. And because 'knowledge' per my suggested definition is based on and represented by words it can be communicated although those words are empty of meaning from the outset. The meaning intended by a speaker has to arise in the mind of the recipient of these words. However the meaning that arises in the mind of the recipient of words depends on the recipients conditionings. Therefore different recipients may need different words to cause the view corresponding to reality to arise.
So there is the aspect of 'view' which is the verbal expression of it which may be equated with 'knowledge' and the aspect of 'view' which is the meaning arising in the mind of a hearer upon hearing the verbal expression of it. So funnily someone may verbally express the view corresponding to reality, in terms of the aspect of verbal expression correctly from the perspective of one who sees reality although not having the 'right view' in terms of the meaning aspect. And the other way round is also possible: someone may have the view corresponding to reality as meaning aspect however may not be able to express it in a way that makes another person understand.
The question then is whether it may happen that even if two individuals have the view in terms of meaning corresponding to reality in their minds they do not understand each others words correctly and assume that the other has the 'wrong' view?
Or whether it may happen that even if two individuals have a view in terms of meaning not corresponding to reality in their minds they do understand each others words as if correctly expressing the view corresponding to reality?
Now the religious belief in budddhism is that an 'all-knowing' buddha always know the words that are to apply for a certain type of conditioned recipient so that the meaning corresponding to reality arises in his mind. If so then the words in the scriptures cannot be the words of a buddha because these words are standardized for a certain exclusive audience.

Anyway ... after all this rambling speech ... what then is the connection with certainty which is according to my suggested definition not based on words? I'd suggest that the individual intuitive experience that one's individual conditings and the knowledge in terms of verbal expression and the view in terms of the meaning of the verbal expression of this knowledge do match and that this match causes certainty to arise. However I have not mentioned reality here since certainties may again fade away and arise based on different knowledge in terms of verbal expression and view in terms of the meaning of the verbal expression of this knowledge. I.e. only the additional match with reality will entail a stable certainty.

Now this of course has just been a heuristic development of a hypothesis concerning the relationship between knowledge and certainty based on my definitions of 'knowledge' and 'certainty' and based on the assumption that the postulate of a singularity called 'reality' is appropriate.

Ramble as you might, what you said touches on what I consider to be the proper way of of 'buddhist' discussion. As you earlier alluded to, the discourse isn't actually apart from the practice because one investigates what is being said in regards to themselves, and this a way of self inquiry, rather that telling people stuff. To me, if that is not occurring in these conversations, they have nothing to do with Buddhism.

From my perspective, we may talk about factual stuff regarding some Buddhist tradition, text, 'special words' and so on, but that's not 'Buddhism' in the sense I'm using the word. As I say, the sense in which I use it is 'practice during discourse'. Hence I advocate 'right speech', communication in loving kindness, and that sort of basis to bring about the vibe which is conducive to the actual meditation, which on this forum, is the conversation.

If we are really communicating, our attention is such that we are affected, we are aware of being affected, and within this aura of loving kindness, possibly transformed, even if only slightly. In short, ones life could be, actually should be, improved by participating in talks here - otherwise, I don't see the point. I'm positive a general mindfulness of metta will benefit the lives of us all, or at the very least, harm none, as we touch upon the love that rises from the deep places of the heart.

The 'real conversation' has no right/no wrong, and that whole mindset of agreeing disagreeing and holding the knowledge as Truth is in itself the play of distraction, and it isn't the right dialectic of considering sincerely what oneself and what others say. How can we be mindful of self and others when we are so involved in telling, refuting, not believing people, competing and so on? I don't even the kindness in that sort of thing.

This is why what I say isn't correct, and I don't come here with a plan, so it can't be correct, and it can't be incorrect, it simply touches people insightfully or it doesn't and I don't care either way. So long as kindness in the atmosphere remains conducive to peoples possibility of insight and their growing wisdom, I am content, for behind all of this is my one true wish, that all beings be happy.

Ok. So it's my turn to ramble, and it's not even a reply to you , so I'll get back later and address what you actually said Hahaha.