Practice and philosophy

[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.

[naturesflow]

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.

Ok. Sounds good to me and really I cant see why the discourse wouldn't be related in this way, because when its all text and knowledge, without the experience to sieve through and find yourself in all that, it would contradict itself in everyway. I mean I can see through many sharing's here, people talk the talk over and over, what is right, what it all means, how it needs to be. That's all well and good to someone using the intellectual capacity of themselves to gather information and build their own filling cabinet tucking it all in nice and snuggly for future reference, but gee gosh it gets boring...haha

[naturesflow]

ok the other thing that comes to mind in me reading this, is this.

As I see myself unfolding over many years of conscious self awareness, I knew nothing of Buddhism, but in the unfolding I noticed something interesting, that through my own awareness and process, I would enter into those spaces that Buddhism speaks of most naturally. It wasn't something I was seeking, the truth in myself naturally went that deep to open and relate to Buddhism and its teachings with an awareness that somehow I was fitting into the picture of it all without even needing to study it. I get it, because it makes sense to the truth in myself that I came to know myself as myself. I remember a point of realization along the way, that Buddhism revealed itself to me at a certain attainment in process. It was like. Ok you have arrived, this is where you are now, this is what this point of reference in yourself is showing you. The experience of life and being open and self reflective, as the practice took me to through those many places Buddhism identifies itself as. I noticed many in my world doing the same thing, reaching the point of external acknowledgment they are finding meeting points with the teachings and the practices, it just makes sense. It gives an understanding to the truth they find in themselves through other means of what Buddhism relates as..

When I discovered myself arriving in that place, I knew that I had arrived to a point where I didn't need to seek anymore. It was like this now was the practice of your life to come. Just live it. It reflected itself to show me that Buddhism actually was the most sound version of practice for life as the lived experience of itself, than anything else I had sought to find myself in..And I will add I wasn't a meditator, I am now. I meditate to be in silence and peace.

[BlueSky]

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.

The reality of it is that if it doesn't make sense and you can't apply it to yourself and you let it go, then you have to do so with the mindset that either you are not ready or you just don't understand.
If you take the mindset that I wouldn't want this even if it was so in such cases you might find it impossible to continue on this path.
Add to that all of the different understandings of what Buddhism is and one loses faith in trusting taking refuge when things come up that one cannot apply to ones life.
I'm just giving you a real life example.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

The reality of it is that if it doesn't make sense and you can't apply it to yourself and you let it go, then you have to do so with the mindset that either you are not ready or you just don't understand.
If you take the mindset that I wouldn't want this even if it was so in such cases you might find it impossible to continue on this path.
Add to that all of the different understandings of what Buddhism is and one loses faith in trusting taking refuge when things come up that one cannot apply to ones life.
I'm just giving you a real life example.

I don't think it requires a mindset... it is just true that it makes no sense and has no meaning regarding my life. Some of it does; some of it doesn't; and some of it probably never will. I think people forget what is important, and they give too much importance to to text. It creates problems because the authority of text becomes internalised, and people start double checking themselves against 'what they know'. In this way they become within themselves both the disciplinarian and the disciplined, and practice a sort of obedience - a pretense of being a good Buddhist.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't think it requires a mindset... it is just true that it makes no sense and has no meaning regarding my life. Some of it does; some of it doesn't; and some of it probably never will. I think people forget what is important, and they give too much importance to to text. It creates problems because the authority of text becomes internalised, and people start double checking themselves against 'what they know'. In this way they become within themselves both the disciplinarian and the disciplined, and practice a sort of obedience - a pretense of being a good Buddhist.

The part that doesn't make sense or may never will for you is viewed in what mindset by you?
That's what what I'm saying, is it viewed as you'll get there someday or as it's not correctly interpreted.
One has to have an idea where this path is headed according to the teachers of it.

[Jyotir]

Hi Gem,

Good point.
No yoga of any kind can be truly meaningful as only theory.
It has to be practiced, experienced, assimilated, realized, and embodied as demonstration. Otherwise the 'teaching' is really nothing other than an intellectual speculation.

~ J

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Gem,

Good point.
No yoga of any kind can be truly meaningful as only theory.
It has to be practiced, experienced, assimilated, realized, and embodied as demonstration. Otherwise the 'teaching' is really nothing other than an intellectual speculation.

~ J

True but my point is that one has to understand the theory and see something in it that motivates them in order to begin a practice.
Buddhism as a whole doesn't do that for me. Parts of it does but buddhism as a practice is more like a vow which requires faith in the theory.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

ok the other thing that comes to mind in me reading this, is this.

As I see myself unfolding over many years of conscious self awareness, I knew nothing of Buddhism, but in the unfolding I noticed something interesting, that through my own awareness and process, I would enter into those spaces that Buddhism speaks of most naturally. It wasn't something I was seeking, the truth in myself naturally went that deep to open and relate to Buddhism and its teachings with an awareness that somehow I was fitting into the picture of it all without even needing to study it. I get it, because it makes sense to the truth in myself that I came to know myself as myself. I remember a point of realization along the way, that Buddhism revealed itself to me at a certain attainment in process. It was like. Ok you have arrived, this is where you are now, this is what this point of reference in yourself is showing you. The experience of life and being open and self reflective, as the practice took me to through those many places Buddhism identifies itself as. I noticed many in my world doing the same thing, reaching the point of external acknowledgment they are finding meeting points with the teachings and the practices, it just makes sense. It gives an understanding to the truth they find in themselves through other means of what Buddhism relates as..

When I discovered myself arriving in that place, I knew that I had arrived to a point where I didn't need to seek anymore. It was like this now was the practice of your life to come. Just live it. It reflected itself to show me that Buddhism actually was the most sound version of practice for life as the lived experience of itself, than anything else I had sought to find myself in..And I will add I wasn't a meditator, I am now. I meditate to be in silence and peace.

At the ashram the teachers told us there is law that distinguishes what is dhamma from what isn't, and that law is, dhamma is universal. That means it doesn't matter what sect anyone is, Christians Jews Muslims and what their respective beliefs are. Dhamma applies to everyone, just like breathing does.

Buddhism isn't really a knowledge that is learned - it is like you don't know if you are breathing or not unless you check, and you find out that you are, but when you aren't checking, you don't know. In this sense, you can't acquire the dhamma - you have to be aware, but you don't know if you are aware unless you check on it, and as soon as you do, you discover that you are. Dhamma is immediate, it exists only in this moment of recognition. Only a memory can be written down, so the text without recognition is stale. Last time I used the term 'the living dhamma' I was ridiculed by the resident arbiter of authentic texts, but dhamma is how nature is, and nature is living, so we can touch on life, but only in the moment it lives, and if we check to see, 'this' is what it is to be alive.

In the moment we notice, there is no seeking, because there is no time, I check I see in the same moment. 'This' is breathing. 'This' is awareness. Dhamma is kinda like that.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

Practice and philosophy compliment each other. ... philosophy and practice go together.