Being right on the 8 fold path

[Ground]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

You misinterpreted my authentic text in my post.

your posting may be authentic as to your private belief but as to buddhism only authentic buddhist texts are relevant.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, because there is a difference between heeding what the Buddha (enlightened ones) say and being blind in believing it. And really, what does authenticity imply - something genuine, sincere, honest - and perhaps other virtues that the 8 path implies. If we use 'authentic' to suggest the discourse is unquestionably true, then we become dogmatic and inane - and we've seen this is the way things have gone in the past.

Uhuh.

Yeah we don't need a revival of this song do we? hehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkuu0Lwb5EM

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Ground

your posting may be authentic as to your private belief but as to buddhism only authentic buddhist texts are relevant.

You need to let your groundhog day hair down Ground. Here, take this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-O1RZOjiuM

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

your posting may be authentic as to your private belief but as to buddhism only authentic buddhist texts are relevant.

Buddhism texts are human base or philosophy base so you're not thinking that Buddhism texts are not error base? Nothing is absolute or absolutely "authentic". Philosophy is only idea created by the understanding of nature. But one question can have many different types of right answers. In science Einstein's explanation said so. Do check on science and philosophy relationship.

There's an error of non-duality philosophy, for my three spirits are staying outside of me that means I've break the law of Buddhism non-duality philosophy. So non-duality is not true. If you don't believe I can show you my Spirit-God if you've third eye to see spirits or Gods.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I think understanding the experts in that authoritarian manner is a good thing all the same, so I see the difference between trying to understand it and "entertaining it" can support understanding it as well as determining what is "right" for ourselves as individuals and as a whole shared space together.

I find myself personally trying to understand this kind of behaviour because it just seems so far removed from what I understand in myself in relation to the "direct awareness" of Buddhism as your "true nature relating aware".So even as I view it and am conscious of not entertaining it, I feel it offers me understanding as to why and how and when, who are these people, that choose this way..

I spent 10 years amongst this type of behavior in the Christianity world in person. This holding fast to scriptures almost seemed as a way for many to justifiably set themselves apart from others. Many, in the world were set apart by those in the world prior.
There's lots a reasons I'm sure but as Sky said "you will know them by their fruit" and the results of holding fast to text or scriptures at the expense of others is seen clearly in the news and even here. Having faith in the scriptures is a more rational approach.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

I spent 10 years amongst this type of behavior in the Christianity world in person. This holding fast to scriptures almost seemed as a way for many to justifiably set themselves apart from others. Many, in the world were set apart by those in the world prior.
There's lots a reasons I'm sure but as Sky said "you will know them by their fruit" and the results of holding fast to text or scriptures at the expense of others is seen clearly in the news and even here. Having faith in the scriptures is a more rational approach.

Yes I understand, I have a few born again Christian friends and I know how the conversations turn once you hit the "spot" where there is no where else to go but allow and listen to them holding firm to their beliefs.


In this instance here when it arises, if one on the other side of this holds firm in their own stance up against it, I realize that just creates a reflection pulling at itself in the same way so I am conscious of myself in this way.

In saying all that, I feel it offers a really good reflection in seeing how it unfolds in this way, making me more conscious of why I had to let go of my beliefs all the way through my process. My learning mind realized an open mind is an explorers mind so this supports me to be more open to life in so many ways of life happening and even if it doesn't match my open mind, I still gain so much through my natural ability to self reflect deeper and explore those sides others like siding with for themselves. Part of my own process was and is to drop all sides and deepen in myself in this open state of being. But that is just me of course.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I think understanding the experts in that authoritarian manner is a good thing all the same, so I see the difference between trying to understand it and "entertaining it" can support understanding it as well as determining what is "right" for ourselves as individuals and as a whole shared space together.

I find myself personally trying to understand this kind of behaviour because it just seems so far removed from what I understand in myself in relation to the "direct awareness" of Buddhism as your "true nature relating aware".So even as I view it and am conscious of not entertaining it, I feel it offers me understanding as to why and how and when, who are these people, that choose this way..

It the rigours and formalities of the practice we usually take refuge in the Buddha and the Dhamma (and the sangha), and its a way of declaring that one will trust in the enlightened ones and take heed in what they say, so we're like, 'this bloke knows what he's talking about', and we generally accept that there must be something to it, but the teachers explain that if it doesn't make sense you, then don't accept it - just put it aside and leave it there and maybe sometime later on it will make sense. Thus we don't accept on authority, but we would usually consider our own gaps in understanding, rather than say the teaching is wrong.

After the person has taken refuge and taken the preliminary ethical precepts like don't steal, kill and lie etc, they undertake their meditation (which they call "samma samadhi" - right meditation/concentration/observation). The dhamma teaching is given orally in evening discourses in line with the stage of that day's meditation, so people will understand the teaching according the insights commonly realised at that meditation stage. But for example, on a night they teach about rebirth and include reincartnation - well maybe what they say is true and maybe it isn't, maybe one day I'll find out, and maybe I won't. Tonight I take what meaning I realise - and leave the rest aside. It's not delivered as it being true in a right vs. wrong way - it's layered with nuances

If you go to see a teacher privately and start discussing if its true or not, they won't waste time - they'll just ask you about your meditation practice, and help you to improve in making it 'right'.

So, we just trust and have faith, and we either have the insight that enables understanding teaching or we don't, but either way it's the same - we return to our meditation.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

It the rigours and formalities of the practice we usually take refuge in the Buddha and the Dhamma (and the sangha), and its a way of declaring that one will trust in the enlightened ones and take heed in what they say, so we're like, 'this bloke knows what he's talking about', and we generally accept that there must be something to it, but the teachers explain that if it doesn't make sense you, then don't accept it - just put it aside and leave it there and maybe sometime later on it will make sense. Thus we don't accept on authority, but we would usually consider our own gaps in understanding, rather than say the teaching is wrong.

After the person has taken refuge and taken the preliminary ethical precepts like don't steal, kill and lie etc, they undertake their meditation (which they call "samma samadhi" - right meditation/concentration/observation). The dhamma teaching is given orally in evening discourses in line with the stage of that day's meditation, so people will understand the teaching according the insights commonly realised at that meditation stage. But for example, on a night they teach about rebirth and include reincartnation - well maybe what they say is true and maybe it isn't, maybe one day I'll find out, and maybe I won't. Tonight I take what meaning I realise - and leave the rest aside. It's not delivered as it being true in a right vs. wrong way - it's layered with nuances

If you go to see a teacher privately and start discussing if its true or not, they won't waste time - they'll just ask you about your meditation practice, and help you to improve in making it 'right'.

So, we just trust and have faith, and we either have the insight that enables understanding teaching or we don't, but either way it's the same - we return to our meditation.

That was informative, you gave me a first hand glimpse into that world and I can see now how it would all work together beautifully..

Its interesting when you said about the daily meditation and the discourse all coming together as it might or not. It reminds me of our mediation group gathering last night. Someone who is very well versed in something, began to describe to me on the way home someone new in the group their way of processing and realizing things. He is very articulate and relates the knowledge and often its hard for me to find associations just through that means alone. Of course last night I told him, I can see now first hand through that three hours of interactions and mediation how it all fits into what your saying. So it worked a treat in this way, for me at least..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

That was informative, you gave me a first hand glimpse into that world and I can see now how it would all work together beautifully..

Its interesting when you said about the daily meditation and the discourse all coming together as it might or not. It reminds me of our mediation group gathering last night. Someone who is very well versed in something, began to describe to me on the way home someone new in the group their way of processing and realizing things. He is very articulate and relates the knowledge and often its hard for me to find associations just through that means alone. Of course last night I told him, I can see now first hand through that three hours of interactions and mediation how it all fits into what your saying. So it worked a treat in this way, for me at least..

Yes. The practice and philosophy go together, so if we just bla bla, but lose our mindfulness, we end up losing the plot. teehee.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes. The practice and philosophy go together, so if we just bla bla, but lose our mindfulness, we end up losing the plot. teehee.

Indeed..we don't want thickened plots....hehe